dignity of human person essay

Berkley Center

Human persons and human dignity: implications for dialogue and action.

By: Thomas Banchoff

August 19, 2013

" Contending Modernities ," August 19, 2013

What is the human person? As human beings, we are biological as well as social creatures; we inhabit both physical and cultural space. What distinguishes us as persons , and not just as organisms, is a culture of human dignity – the shared idea that, as human beings, we are entitled to respect and recognition from one another.

Where does the dignity of the human person come from? Broadly speaking, one can distinguish secular-scientific and religious foundations.

From a secular and scientific angle, we have dignity and should respect and recognize one another because of our common humanity. Some emphasize our shared capacity for independent thought; in line with Immanuel Kant, they see autonomy and rationality as a foundation for human dignity. Others focus more on our ability to identify and sympathize with others, an approach related to Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s concept of “pitié” and Adam Smith’s “moral sentiments.”

Recent advances in evolutionary biology and neuroscience have deepened our understanding of this latter, relational approach to the foundations of human dignity. In the long run, evolution appears to have favored the development of ecological sensitivity, group identification and solidarity, and cooperation in the acquisition and shared use of resources. In the here and now, new developments in neuroscience suggest that our brains are much more than autonomous information processors; they change and grow through our interactions and relationships with others and with our external environments.

Interestingly, scientific methods that do not begin with the concept of human dignity are increasingly leading to a conclusion compatible with it — that we have good evolutionary and biological reasons to acknowledge one another as fellow human beings worthy of respect and recognition and therefore endowed with an intrinsic dignity.

For Catholicism and Islam, the focus of the Contending Modernities project , the dignity of the human person has divine foundations. Because God created each of us and cares for each of us, each individual person has an intrinsic and inviolable dignity. The moral theology of the person is most developed in Christianity; it is connected with the mystery of the Trinity (one God in three persons), and in the Incarnation (God becoming a human being.) But the idea of the person, as a creature of an all powerful and merciful God, also plays an important role in Islam. God reveals his law to humankind and calls us to live as His co-regents on earth, honoring one another with recognition and respect.

There is, of course, a fundamental asymmetry between the secular-scientific and the religious understandings of the human person. The non-believer will reject the idea that the dignity of the human person has divine origins, while the believer will typically assert that human dignity has both divine and natural foundations.

Yet this asymmetry need not be a barrier to dialogue. In our contemporary era, even those who reject the idea of human dignity as fuzzy and unscientific generally affirm the importance of according basic respect and recognition to all human beings. The basic idea of the human person and of universal human dignity is shared, even as terminology differs. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which emerged out of decades of contestation within and across secular and religious traditions – and in revulsion against the horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust – remains the clearest and most powerful expression of this far-reaching consensus.

In practice we know that this broad contemporary convergence around the idea of the human person and human dignity, across the secular-religious divide, coexists with fierce disagreement on a range of ethical and policy questions. Is the human embryo or fetus a human person deserving of protection? Are primates or other non-human animals to be considered persons with intrinsic dignity or rights? Should governments work to secure equality of opportunity for their citizens and provide a minimum standard of living for all? Should governments and citizens share their wealth with those in need outside, as well as inside, a nation’s borders? Questions relating to the human person and human dignity can be multiplied across economic, social, cultural, and foreign policy domains (even if, in the United States, they tend to center on bioethics).

A key challenge in such ethical and policy debates, within and across secular-scientific and religious communities, is to keep the ideas of the human person and of human dignity in the foreground. That means asking what is at stake for particular people and their livelihoods in particular contexts, as well as thinking through the ethical implications of our individual and collective decisions for global humanity, at a time when the rapid advance of technology and of globalization in all its dimensions is rendering those decisions more complex and consequential.

A focus on the human person has a further implication, perhaps the most challenging of all – that in all these ethical and policy controversies, we should acknowledge the humanity and dignity of our interlocutors, no matter how much we may disagree.

This article was originally published on the University of Notre Dame blog " Contending Modernities ."

Human Dignity in Philosophy and Bioethics

This essay about the essence of human dignity, both in philosophy and bioethics. It explores how this concept, intrinsic to each individual, shapes moral philosophy, ethical decision-making in healthcare, and broader societal discourse. Human dignity serves as a guiding principle, emphasizing the inherent worth and value of every person, irrespective of societal constructs or circumstances. From ancient philosophical inquiries to contemporary bioethical debates, it underscores the importance of compassion, empathy, and respect in our interactions and societal structures. Ultimately, this essay highlights the enduring significance of human dignity in fostering a more just, compassionate, and inclusive society.

How it works

In the tapestry of human existence, there exists a thread that binds us all together, weaving through the complexities of philosophy and bioethics alike. This thread is none other than the concept of human dignity, a beacon of light illuminating our understanding of what it means to be truly human. It is a notion that transcends borders and disciplines, resonating deeply within the fabric of our collective consciousness.

At its essence, human dignity embodies the intrinsic worth and value of every individual, irrespective of societal labels or preconceived notions.

It is a recognition of our shared humanity, affirming the uniqueness and irreplaceability of each person’s journey through life. From the bustling streets of urban metropolises to the serene landscapes of rural communities, the principle of human dignity serves as a guiding principle, steering our moral compass towards compassion and empathy.

Throughout the annals of history, philosophers have grappled with the complexities of human dignity, delving into its philosophical underpinnings and implications for ethical discourse. From the towering intellects of ancient Greece to the enlightenment thinkers of the 18th century, the concept of human dignity has sparked debates and reflections on the nature of moral agency and the sanctity of human life. It is a testament to the enduring relevance of this concept that continues to inspire scholars and thinkers across generations.

In the realm of bioethics, human dignity takes center stage, shaping our understanding of medical ethics and the ethical implications of advances in biomedical technology. From the ethical considerations surrounding organ transplantation to the ethical dilemmas posed by genetic engineering, the principle of human dignity provides a moral framework for navigating the complexities of modern healthcare. It reminds us that behind every medical diagnosis and research protocol lies a human being deserving of dignity and respect.

Beyond the confines of academia, human dignity finds expression in our everyday interactions and societal structures. It is reflected in the pursuit of social justice and equality, as we strive to dismantle systems of oppression and discrimination that undermine the dignity of marginalized communities. It is embodied in acts of kindness and compassion, as we extend a helping hand to those in need, affirming their inherent worth and value as fellow members of the human family.

In conclusion, human dignity stands as a beacon of hope in an increasingly complex world, guiding our moral decisions and ethical reflections with its timeless wisdom. As we navigate the myriad challenges of the 21st century, let us hold fast to the principle of human dignity, embracing its transformative power to build a more just, compassionate, and humane society for all.

Cite this page

Human Dignity In Philosophy And Bioethics. (2024, Apr 22). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/human-dignity-in-philosophy-and-bioethics/

"Human Dignity In Philosophy And Bioethics." PapersOwl.com , 22 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/human-dignity-in-philosophy-and-bioethics/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Human Dignity In Philosophy And Bioethics . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/human-dignity-in-philosophy-and-bioethics/ [Accessed: 27 Apr. 2024]

"Human Dignity In Philosophy And Bioethics." PapersOwl.com, Apr 22, 2024. Accessed April 27, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/human-dignity-in-philosophy-and-bioethics/

"Human Dignity In Philosophy And Bioethics," PapersOwl.com , 22-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/human-dignity-in-philosophy-and-bioethics/. [Accessed: 27-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Human Dignity In Philosophy And Bioethics . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/human-dignity-in-philosophy-and-bioethics/ [Accessed: 27-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Brill | Nijhoff

Brill | Wageningen Academic

Brill Germany / Austria

Böhlau

Brill | Fink

Brill | mentis

Brill | Schöningh

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

V&R unipress

Open Access

Open Access for Authors

Open Access and Research Funding

Open Access for Librarians

Open Access for Academic Societies

Discover Brill’s Open Access Content

Organization

Stay updated

Corporate Social Responsiblity

Investor Relations

Policies, rights & permissions

Review a Brill Book

Author Portal

How to publish with Brill: Files & Guides

Fonts, Scripts and Unicode

Publication Ethics & COPE Compliance

Data Sharing Policy

Brill MyBook

Ordering from Brill

Author Newsletter

Piracy Reporting Form

Sales Managers and Sales Contacts

Ordering From Brill

Titles No Longer Published by Brill

Catalogs, Flyers and Price Lists

E-Book Collections Title Lists and MARC Records

How to Manage your Online Holdings

LibLynx Access Management

Discovery Services

KBART Files

MARC Records

Online User and Order Help

Rights and Permissions

Latest Key Figures

Latest Financial Press Releases and Reports

Annual General Meeting of Shareholders

Share Information

Specialty Products

Press and Reviews

Share link with colleague or librarian

Stay informed about this journal!

• Get New Issue Alerts
• Get Advance Article alerts
• Get Citation Alerts

Human Dignity in an Ethical Sense: Basic Considerations

The idea of human dignity is an ancient one. It has been the object of reflection with different approaches, during the various periods in the history of philosophical, theological, and ethical thought. This essay focuses on the most relevant approaches to the idea of human dignity in this cultural evolution, proposing a look at the ontological paradigm and its limits, the ethical paradigm and its values, and the theological paradigm and its resources. An anthropological reading concludes this essay, bringing out the relational value of the idea of human dignity. Based on this particular focus, the idea of human dignity assumes a form of critical thinking that makes us sensitive to the real inequalities between human beings and opens the possibility of ethical and political practices of recognition and emancipation.

• 1 Introductory Considerations

No other concept has had so much resonance in the history of ethical thought than that of the dignity of the person. Defining the concept, however, has caused acrimonious scholarly debates in various areas of moral reflection. 1

In the context of the themes that emerge in the field of bioethics, human dignity and its definition are foundational, both for the issues surrounding clinical ethics and also the field of biomedical research. To cite one example among many, we may consider the recent document of the Deutscher Ethikrat of 9 May 2019, concerning interventions on the human germ line. In this document, among the standards for ethical evaluation there is a list of eight factors, the first of which is human dignity ( Menschenwürde ). It is recognized that human dignity requires a priority of consideration, even before freedom, responsibility, solidarity, and other factors. Indeed, it can be said that human dignity is the foundation for all other ethical factors. 2

The recourse to the category of human dignity is very common also in other documents, such as strictly religious, moral-theological documents. Consider the declaration by the Second Vatican Council on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae (1965), or more recently the declaration by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on some questions of bioethics, Dignitas Personae (2008).

In addition, against the background of anthropological, ethical, legal, and political reflections stands the thorny and dramatic problem of violence against women. The concept of human dignity must engage this issue with sensitivity to considerations and contributions that revolve around gender. 3

And yet, no other concept is so difficult to define, especially when we consider its implications for specific ethical issues. For this reason, careful reflection and analysis are required both on human dignity’s historical and systematic development, and on the need to contextualize its importance and meaning.

We know well that the idea of human dignity is very ancient and has its roots already in classical culture. 4 The dignitas romana that Cicero writes about reflects a concept already known to Greek philosophy, although in these writings the emphasis is placed mainly on the socio-political aspects of personal action within the community. The dignity with which a person establishes and lives out his life in society constitutes the substance of his dignity.

Against this historical background, Christianity looks in depth at another dimension of human dignity, introducing a consideration that is more distinctly anthropological. 5 In fact, the Fathers of the ancient church, Justin and Irenaeus for example, focus on the anthropological vision of the First Testament, emphasizing the wonder of God’s creative work and the goodness of all creation, especially the goodness of human beings. The reference to the theme of the imago Dei becomes indispensable for a theological definition of human dignity. Although it moves the discourse in a typically religious-theological direction, it also contributes to an analysis directly linked to the essence of the person and therefore to anthropology. 6

The following reflection intends to contribute to the ongoing definition of human dignity, embracing a gender sensitive perspective that leads us to emphasize the substantial and concrete character with which we should approach the theme of human dignity.

• 2 The Foundational Value of the Dignity of the Person

While in the past the concept of human dignity was the sole focus in defining the person, today it is understood as a foundational value and used to explain other ethical concepts, such as freedom, responsibility, and solidarity. If we observe the development of applied ethics in biology, medicine, social life, economic reality, family life, etc., the concept of human dignity always appears when we address the question of the foundation and formulation of norms. Human dignity becomes more and more a formal reality, subject to an aporia that is not easily solved; in itself, it says little, and yet it is expected to be a strong foundation for the formulation and justification of norms. This aporia is evident in a striking manner, when considering the concept of human dignity in relation to the theme of human rights. This is the most striking example of the disconnect between the foundational and comprehensive expectations of the concept of human dignity and its actual lack of content.

This is not the place to trace a history of human rights, however. The decades that separate us from the 1948 UDHR have certainly provided many occasions for reflection and analysis concerning both the problem of the theoretical foundation for these rights and the historical conditions in which they are in fact recognized, cultivated, and practiced or where, instead, they are trampled underfoot and violated. 7

In the network of considerations emerging from various ideological and cultural perspectives, there is a surprising consistency in that the only exhaustive foundation for human rights is precisely the dignity of the person. This choice for human dignity overcomes a centuries-old history of fragile references to extrinsic values, where the foundation was represented by elements rooted, not directly in the nature of the person, but rather in some of his individual, social, or collective dimensions. Agreement on the point that human dignity is the sole foundation for the rights of the person is a turning point of epochal value and brings with it a new concreteness and stability in the interpretation of human rights and in their morally binding value.

And yet, the concreteness and stability crumble when we try to define the concept of human dignity. The initial universal agreement on human dignity as a foundation for human rights becomes a point of disagreement due to particular definitions of human dignity, to such a degree that the solidarity that occurs in advocating human rights breaks up into fragmentary ideological barriers in light of those definitions. In particular, the abstractness with which one approaches the theme of human dignity and rights is alarming. It is not only the result of a disproportionate focus on the essentialist, metaphysical, ontological definition of human dignity, but it is also the tragic consequence of a neglected existential contextualization of this dignity, in the history of people, in people as subjects who have a gender identity that makes them specific and unique.

This is why the appeal that comes from much of feminist theology or queer theology today must be taken seriously. When – as for example Linn Marie Tonstad writes – the importance of “anti-essentialism and denaturalization” are recognized as starting points for a contextualized perspective, respectful of the subject specificity of every human being, then the theme of dignity enters into an area of substantial, consistent, and concrete understanding. 8 But this sensitivity requires a process of rethinking that evolves through different philosophical and theological approaches and perspectives.

3 How Can We Understand Human Dignity?

• 3.1 The Ontological Approach and Its Limits

The first perspective we consider is an “ontological” approach (which can also be defined as “natural law”). Here, it is the nature of the person, with his or her concreteness of being, that functions as a fundamental point of disagreement on the definition of human dignity.

The qualitative leap in the ontology of the person, with respect to the being of other beings, demands the recognition of a particular dignity, which is of a higher degree than the dignity of other beings. A philosophical-metaphysical angle plays the greatest role here in deciphering the ontological and essential characteristics of the person, to emphasize the person’s superiority, intangibility, in other words, her dignity. Within this ontological approach there are different nuances, deriving mainly from the way the person’s essence is related to her historical, interpersonal, and social existence. One can and must speak, therefore, of an ontology that is more or less essentialist, more or less individualistic, more or less relational, etc. The essence of the person is mainly expressed in the fundamental law that is incumbent upon it, a law that derives from its nature as a person. The natural law, therefore, becomes the proper location of the dignity of the person. The need to respect human dignity runs parallel to the need to respect the natural law in which the person is situated. And the same dynamic is also valid on the part of the human subject: she cannot escape from respect for the natural law, because otherwise she offends and destroys her own dignity as a person.

From this perspective, human dignity is nothing other than the fullness of being; the telos of the person that is already written within her, through natural law. The perception of this fullness does not happen, however, in abstract and generically deductive terms, but is combined with the growth of the person’s sensitivity, with her reaction to a scale of objective values, in a context of experience that is a viable route for raising awareness and personalizing the value of her personal dignity. In this sense, the ontological approach of some authors is completed and more accurately identified as an “inductive-ontological” approach (for example, for J. Messner), 9 with due consideration for a positive and relevant meaning of experience, historicity, and the space-time, cultural-environmental conditioning. However, the metaphysical level remains predominant, and regarding what directly concerns human rights, there is a strong focus on their juridical aspect, as a particular representation of the natural law. The substantial gender identity of the person appears irrelevant in this ontological approach. More specifically, this absence of reference to the specific gender of people affects the female subject, who is, so to speak, incorporated into the generically “human”, that is, male.

• 3.2 Ethical Approach and Its Values

A second perspective to define human dignity is the transcendental philosophical approach, as formulated by I. Kant. 10 He sees the reason for human dignity as based on the moral self-determination of the human being, on his moral autonomy. This autonomy is “the reason for the dignity of human nature and of any rational nature”. 11 In fact, a being who is able to become a law to himself cannot be without dignity. Moral autonomy entails an immediate consequence: the person, in his actions, must abide by the dictates of a categorical imperative which concerns and grounds his dignity. This imperative is formulated by Kant as follows: “Act in such a way as to use the humanity that is in you and in every other person always as an end and never as a pure means.” 12 The categorical nature of this ethical requirement is in turn based on the rationality of the person. The person is truly capable of giving herself direction and moral directives, and this is her dignity.

The foundation of this dignity is not an empirical datum. It does not belong to the fluctuation of contingent experiences, but is firmly anchored in the rational nature of the human person and is expressed in the ability to translate the depth of reason into ethical terms. However, dignity does not depend on the concrete realization of the moral imperative. It can be predicated of every human being, as a subject endowed with ethical autonomy and antecedently to seeing how this ethical autonomy is exercised in the concrete. In a sense, the Kantian formulation of human dignity is also essentialist and relates to the nature of the person. This is done, however, not in relation to ontology, but rather in relation to the substantial morality of the person.

With this shift initiated by Kant, from the terrain of metaphysics to the terrain of morality, a new and relevant element for the foundation of human rights and for a more adequate understanding of their nature is introduced. Kant recovers the close relationship between the idea of law and that of duty. On the basis of a person’s due dignity, the human being is the subject of inalienable rights, and their transgression would immediately lead to the human being’s reduction from an end to a pure means. But on the basis of the ability to orient herself to the good and to follow the categorical imperative in her moral life, the human being is also the active subject of moral duties concerning herself and other persons.

In this predominantly ethical approach, the suspicion could easily emerge that at the root is a sort of moral optimism, of enthusiastic faith in the human ability to perceive and to follow the categorical imperative and therefore to express her dignity always and in any case. Kant overcomes the risk of this misunderstanding by emphasizing that in the person, in her historical condition, evil acts constitute a real attack on the human being, on her will and her dignity. It is only the predisposition and the inclination towards the good that establishes the dignity of the person, not the realization of good acts. With this qualification, Kant thereby salvages the possibility that the rights as a human person will be recognized and attributed even to one who is unjust and dishonest.

Human dignity consists, then, in an ontological openness of being to the good and is the responsibility of the subject, beyond the moral evaluation of her behavior. Human rights are ultimately founded on this human quality of being and becoming a subject open to the good.

However, the danger of abstractness in this vision of dignity must not be overlooked. This abstractness is connected above all with the formal character of the anthropological reference on which dignity is based. The minimal concrete specification, the insufficient level in considering the material scale of values in their genesis and in placing them as motivational instances for life practices, make the idea of human dignity ultimately evanescent, unable to affect the transformative processes of its own history and that of other people.

• 3.3 Theological Approach and Its Resources

The third perspective on human dignity is immediately related to the basic lines of a theological anthropological approach. Human dignity has its roots in the fundamental reality of the creation and salvation of the human being by God. God imprints on the human being his image and his likeness, thereby making the human being superior to all other beings who are creatures, but not creatures created in the image of the Creator. Only the human being has this original characteristic, and she alone has a specific and proper dignity, the summit of all other forms of dignity.

The theological emphasis that we see here has produced over the centuries a diversified history of the interpretation and utilization of the theme of the human being as an image of God. Recently, an ecumenical working group of Catholics and Protestants in Germany produced the text Gott und die Würde des Menschen , recognizing the imago Dei category as the fundamental article of Christian theological anthropology and the basis for every ethical evaluation. 13

The appeal to dignity in the patristic era had its own background and a directly parenetic and ethical use. The Christian who had to “recognize his own dignity” 14 had to assume different styles of judgment and behavior than other citizens. But this limitation of the theme of the image to the ethical field is certainly not the most original contribution we find in Christianity.

Especially in theological and philosophical writings in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the theme of dignity is incorporated into a broader vision and leads to the formulation of different and correlative theses, which intend to answer the question of how and in what respect the character of the human being is manifested as an image of God. In other words: what is the dignity of the human person? 15

The age of scholastic philosophy was characterized by a deliberate choice for the intellectual-rational value of the image of God, imprinted on the human being. The formulation of the imago in speculo rationis contains this truth. Here, we focus on the human ability to know herself and God, and this is her dignity.

But such a partial interpretation, though worthy of theoretical and systematic attention, reduced the transparency of the divine imprint, present in the human creature and concealed the nobility of the whole person, reducing her to a broken system of intelligence and will, of reason, of heart and body. To this theological anthropology is also added the belief that only the human being as man – not as woman – was the image of God. 16

It is urgent to overcome this reductive vision through the recovery of a holistic anthropology that is clearly present in the Bible, even if overshadowed by the dualistic tendencies of Greek philosophy, which penetrated primitive Christianity and still remains in some circles. The dignity of the person does not concern his capacity for knowledge and conscience. Rather, it embraces the unitary and total good of his reality, of his will, of his existence in and as a body, in his capacity for intersubjective relations and in his imperfect relationship with the divine, God, without losing contact with the contingency of historical situations, which are precarious and threatened by the risk of negativity and evil.

The dignity of the person is the dignity of the whole being, because in the totality of this being God’s presence lives and exists and is expressed through the imprint of his image. The human being is thus ennobled in his nature and in his history as a human subject and is as such a recipient of fundamental rights and capable of corresponding duties.

As a result of the intimate unity between the plan of creation and the plan of salvation, every human being carries within himself the image of God and derives from this identity the foundation of his own dignity, which is expressed in the right to have rights, in the claim to see them recognized and in the capacity to assume duties, exercised in responsibility.

• 4 Anthropology of Human Dignity

The philosophy of humanism and of the Renaissance was able to focus on the theme of human dignity in effective terms and to create a literary genre, with works collected under the title De dignitate hominis , among which we must certainly mention the Oratio de hominis dignitate of Pico della Mirandola (1486).

The effort of Renaissance humanism was to penetrate more deeply the anthropological vision, to obtain elements useful to define the category of human dignity. The path of anthropology remains the only practicable path today, if we are to reach a concept of human dignity that does not leave this an empty concept, but charges it with real meaning. Obviously, this path is also exposed to a risk: today anthropology is no longer a homogeneous reality, and there is no one single anthropology. The reality of pluralism, in the basic vision of the human being, of the world and of history, must first be assumed as a cultural horizon in which an anthropological reflection takes place. In connection with this, the art of dialogue on knowledge about the human being, and therefore on the understanding of the concept of human dignity in a pluralist context, must be developed.

Under these conditions, a composite reconstruction of the category of human dignity and the corresponding value of the human rights that are based on it becomes possible. The voices in this dialogue between persons and institutions that are sensitive to the human good and take care to stay clear of a fundamentalist vision, must have all the sufficient space they need in order to express themselves, but also the wisdom and competence to make themselves credible. In this proposal, which undoubtedly has an emancipatory potential within it, gender sensitivity plays an important role, for only thus is it possible to redeem the category of dignity both from abstractness, and from its confinement in an ideal of non-inclusive man.

On this basis, and in order to promote a constructive dialogue, we can indicate those areas where anthropology should focus. Those areas are central elements for the understanding and self-understanding of the person as a “subject”, who is present and alive in history as “corporeity” and is open to “transcendence”. Although an analytic explanation of these intrinsic and substantial dimensions of the person is beyond the scope of this essay, we can say that the various rights that can be predicated about the person directly concern what we have set out above.

In the dignity of the person as an individual subject, as a reality in herself, as an end in herself and not as a pure means, fundamental rights to self-determination are anchored with regard to the way of organizing and structuring her life, to freedom of opinion, and to the choice of where and how to practice her profession.

In the dignity of the person, as a holistic being, far from the soul-body duality and reconciled with her own corporeality, assumed as the formal reality of her being present in the world, the inalienable rights to life, bodily integrity, and health are rooted. At the same time, rights to conditions worthy of humanity also have their location here, to guarantee well-being and safety for a person’s own life: the right to housing, work, a healthy environment and a habitable planet.

And finally, in the dignity of the person as a self-transcending being that is substantially constituted as capable of relationality, of founding confrontation with the “you”, there emerges in the person’s various relationships the fundamental rights to socialization, to forms of love, marriage and family relationships, as well as to participation in social life. Here we also have the fundamental right to religious freedom and to the cultural expressions of one’s faith.

• 5 Conclusion

The theme of human dignity and human rights is a permanent challenge for everyone. We are all involved on a double front: that of growing in the personal awareness of being subjects of dignity and rights, and that of participating in the recognition of the dignity of the other and in the realization of the rights of others. Delegations or limitations of responsibility are not allowed in these two areas, precisely because rights are not an optional good, but the structural and structuring necessity for the person’s dignity.

Those who refuse to grow in the careful and relevant awareness of their rights, expose their dignity as a person to the risk of frustration, and make themselves vulnerable. Those who do not share in solidarity with the destiny of individuals and peoples who fight for their rights, equally endanger the human dignity that is present in those who share their own humanity.

From this point of view, it is significant to note the shift in perspective that can be seen in the enumerations of human rights that have progressively been made over the centuries, and in the 1948 UDHR . The unambiguous solidarity, which corrected the privatized and individualistic approach of the past and which made the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Peoples in 1976 possible, must be taken as a basic guideline for reflecting on, and fighting for, human rights, but also in understanding, articulating, and critiquing concepts of human dignity.

Ultimately, human dignity runs on two tracks of understanding that can and must complement each other. On the one hand, there is the substantive track, which goes back to the totality of the human person as subject, without leading to an individualistic isolation of the human being. On the other hand, there is the relational path, which opens the subject into a network of belonging and cultivates in the person an inclusive and participatory lifestyle. 17 In the relational nature of human dignity is the intrinsic link between the right to one’s dignity and the duty to respect the dignity of others. Today, we are particularly attentive to this relational nature of human dignity, also through the gender sensitivity and the gender culture that is expressed in the recognition and in the dynamic of caring for the dignity of the other. These factors result from the matrix of an emancipation project that is typical of modernity and that from time to time takes on political values and generates the real assumption of responsibility. 18

Only the balanced balance between these two paths ensures a possible future for the theme of human dignity.

Antonio Autiero (born in Naples/Italy 1948) received his doctoral degree in moral theology at the Accademia Alfonsiana in Rome and in Philosophy at the University of Naples. 1983–1985 he was a fellow of the Foundation Alexander von Humboldt at the University of Bonn (Germany). There he was working together with Franz Böckle. In 1991 he became professor of moral theology at the University of Münster, until his retirement in 2013. In the time 1997–2011 he directed the Center for Religious Studies of Trento (Italy). Antonio Autiero has authored or edited books and articles (about 250) on fundamental moral theology, theories of the moral subject and in the field of applied ethics. Autiero is a member of the German Academy of Ethics in Medicine, the StemCell Research governmental commission in Berlin and the Planning Committee of Catholic Theological Ethics in the World Church. He is also coordinator of the ethics group by COMECE (Commission of European Episcopal Conferences) in Brussels.

• Bibliography

Bayertz , Kurt : “ Die Idee der Menschenwürde: Probleme und Paradoxien ”, in: Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 81 ( 4 / 1995 ), p. 465 – 481 .

• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Bilaterale Arbeitsgruppe der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz und der Vereinigten Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche Deutschlands : Gott und die Würde des Menschen . Paderborn/Leipzig : Evangelische Verlagsanstalt/Bonifatius , 2017 .

Børresen , Kari Elisabeth : The Image of God. Gender Models in Judaeo-Christian Tradition . Minneapolis, MN : Fortress , 1995 .

Børresen , Kari Elisabeth : Subordination and Equivalence. The Nature and Role of Woman in Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. A Reprint of a Pioneering Classic , Kampen : Kok Pharos , 1995 .

Centi , Beatrice : “ Il tema della dignità della ragione nel rapporto che Kant instaura tra morale critica e antropologia filosofica ”, in: Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Classe di Lettere e Filosofia , Serie III 12 ( 2 / 1982 ), p. 707 – 747 .

Dean , Richard : The Value of Humanity in Kant’s Moral Theory . Oxford : Clarendon Press , 2006 .

Deutscher Ethikrat : Eingriffe in die menschliche Keimbahn. Stellungnahme , Berlin : Deutscher Ethikrat , 2019 .

Honneth , Axel : The Struggle for Recognition. The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts , Cambridge, MA : The MIT Press , 1995 .

Honneth , Axel : Anerkennung: Eine europäische Ideengeschichte . Berlin : Suhrkamp , 2018 .

International Theological Commission : Communion and Stewardship. Human Person Created in the Image of God . Rome : LEV , 2004 .

Kant , Immanuel : Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten (1785), Fondazione della metafisica dei costumi, in Scritti morali , trans. by Pietro Chiodi . Torino : UTET , 1995 .

Łuków , Pawel : “ A Difficult Legacy: Human Dignity as the Founding Value of Human Rights ”, in: Human Rights Review 19 ( 2018 ), p. 313 – 329 .

Magli , Ida : Sulla dignità della donna. La violenza sulle donne: il pensiero di Wojtyla . Parma : Guanda , 1993 .

Messner , Johannes : Das Naturrecht. Handbuch der Gesellschaftsethik, Staatsethik und Wirtschaftsethik . Berlin : Duncker & Humblot GmbH , 8 2018 .

Nussbaum , Martha : The Therapy of Desire. Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics . Princeton, NJ & Oxford : Princeton University Press , 3 2009 .

Quante , Michael : Menschenwürde und personale Autonomie. Demokratische Werte im Kontext der Lebenswissenschaften . Hamburg : Meiner , 2010 .

Rosen , Michael : Dignity. Its History and Meaning . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press , 2012 .

Schlag , Martin : La dignità dell’uomo come principio sociale. Il contributo della fede cristiana allo Stato secolare . Roma : EDUSC , 2013 .

Schmidt am Busch , Hans-Christoph / Zurn , Christopher (ed.): The Philosophy of Recognition. Historical and Contemporary Perspectives . Lanham, MD : Lexington Books , 2009 .

Siep , Ludwig : Anerkennung als Prinzip der praktischen Philosophie. Untersuchungen zu Hegels Jenaer Philosophie des Geistes . Hamburg : Meiner , 2014 .

Tonstad , Linn Marie : Queer Theology. Beyond Apologetics . Eugene, OR : Cascade Companions , 2018 .

von der Pfordten , Dietmar : “ Zur Würde des Menschen bei Kant ”, in: Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik ( 2006 ), p. 501 – 517 .

Zylberman , Ariel : “ The Relational Structure of Human Dignity ”, in: Australasian Journal of Philosophy 96 ( 4 / 2018 ), p. 738 – 752 .

Cf. Bayertz, Die Idee der Menschenwürde ; Quante, Menschenwürde und personale Autonomie .

Deutscher Ethikrat, Eingriffe in die menschliche Keimbahn , p. 89–96.

The juxtaposition of the theme of dignity and that of violence against women has also been made for a long time in the various pronouncements of the popes from John Paul II to Pope Francis. For John Paul, cf. Magli, Sulla dignità della donna . In the case of Francis, the homily at the Mass on January 1, 2020 will be particularly remembered, with its incisive expression: “every violence inflicted on women is a violation of God.”

( http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2020/01/01/0001/00001.html ).

For a good historical reconstruction of the concept, see Rosen, Dignity: Its History and Meaning . On the specific contribution of Hellenistic culture, see Nussbaum, The Therapy of Desire .

Cf. Schlag, La dignità dell’uomo come principio sociale .

International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship .

The relationship between dignity and human rights is not easy to understand. Tension points are well expressed and systematically analysed by P. Łuków, A Difficult Legacy .

Tonstad, Queer Theology , p. 70–72.

Messner, Das Naturrecht .

Useful references are: Centi, Il tema della dignità della ragione ; Dean, The Value of Humanity ; von der Pfordten, Zur Würde des Menschen .

Kant, Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten , p. 95.

Kant, Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten , p. 88.

Bilaterale Arbeitsgruppe der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz und der Vereinigten Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche Deutschlands, Gott und die Würde des Menschen , no. 50.

Famous is the exhortation “Agnosce, Christiane, dignitatem tuam” of St. Leo the Great (Homilia in Nativitate Domini, 21, 3).

The Prologue to I , II of the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas articulates a reflection on the theme of the image of God in the human being as the foundation of his or her profile as a free, autonomous subject, a bearer of dignity.

We read in the Decretum Gratiani (1140), q. 5, c. 33: “Mulier debet velare caput, quia non est imago Dei.” To understand this nodal point, the researchs of K.E. Børresen remain fundamental, in particular The Image of God , and Subordination and Equivalence .

Zylberman, The Relational Structure of Human Dignity .

For the implications of this concept, see Siep, Anerkennung als Prinzip der praktischen Philosophie ; Honneth, The Struggle for Recognition ; Id., Anerkennung. Eine europäische Ideengeschichte ; Schmidt am Busch/Zurn, The Philosophy of Recognition .

Content Metrics

Reference Works

Primary source collections

COVID-19 Collection

How to publish with Brill

Open Access Content

Contact & Info

Sales contacts

Publishing contacts

Stay Updated

Newsletters

Social Media Overview

Terms and Conditions  

Privacy Statement  

Cookie Settings  

Accessibility

Legal Notice

Terms and Conditions   |   Privacy Statement   |  Cookie Settings   |   Accessibility   |  Legal Notice   |  Copyright © 2016-2024

Copyright © 2016-2024

• [66.249.64.20|185.66.14.236]
• 185.66.14.236

Character limit 500 /500

What is Human Dignity? Common Definitions.

You’ll hear the term “human dignity” a lot these days. Human dignity is at the heart of human rights. What is human dignity exactly? What’s the history of this concept and why does it matter? In this article, we’ll discuss the history of the term, its meaning, and its place in both a human rights framework and a religious framework.

What is human dignity?

At its most basic, the concept of human dignity is the belief that all people hold a special value that’s tied solely to their humanity. It has nothing to do with their class, race, gender, religion, abilities, or any other factor other than them being human.

The term “dignity” has evolved over the years. Originally, the Latin, English, and French words for “dignity” did not have anything to do with a person’s inherent value. It aligned much closer with someone’s “merit.” If someone was “dignified,” it meant they had a high status. They belonged to royalty or the church, or, at the very least, they had money. For this reason, “human dignity” does not appear in the US Declaration of Independence or the Constitution . The phrase as we understand it today wasn’t recognized until 1948. The United Nations ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights .

Human dignity: the human rights framework

The original meaning of the word “dignity” established that someone deserved respect because of their status. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that concept was turned on its head. Article 1 states: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Suddenly, dignity wasn’t something that people earned because of their class, race, or another advantage. It is something all humans are born with. Simply by being human, all people deserve respect. Human rights naturally spring from that dignity.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , adopted in 1966, continued this understanding. The preamble reads that “…these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person.” This belief goes hand in hand with the universality of human rights. In the past, only people made dignified by their status were given respect and rights. By redefining dignity as something inherent to everyone, it also establishes universal rights.

Human dignity: the religious framework

The concept of human dignity isn’t limited to human rights. In fact, for centuries, religions around the world have recognized a form of human dignity as we now understand it. Most (if not all) religions teach that humans are essentially equal for one reason or another. In Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, it’s because humans were created in the image of God, becoming children of God. Dignity is something that a divine being gives to people. In Catholic social teaching, the phrase “Human Dignity” is used specifically to support the church’s belief that every human life is sacred. This defines the denomination’s dedication to social issues like ending the death penalty.

In Hinduism and Buddhism, respectively, dignity is inherent because humans are manifestations of the Divine or on a universal journey to happiness. In the Shvetasvatara Upanishad, an ancient Sanskrit text, it reads “We are all begotten of the immortal,” or “We are children of immortality.” Buddhism begins with the understanding that humans are “rare” because they can make choices that lead to enlightenment. Our dignity arises from this responsibility and ability, uniting all humans in their quest.

When everyone is equal, they are all equally deserving of basic respect and rights, at least in theory. Countless people have had their dignity disrespected over the years by religious institutions and others using religion as justification.

Why recognizing human dignity is so important

Why is human dignity so important when it comes to human rights? Human dignity justifies human rights. When people are divided and given a value based on characteristics like class, gender, religion, and so on, it creates unequal societies where discrimination runs rampant. People assigned a higher value get preferential treatment. Anyone who doesn’t fit into the privileged category is abandoned or oppressed. We’ve seen what happens in places where human dignity isn’t seen as inherent and human rights aren’t universal. While the privileged few in these societies flourish, society as a whole suffers significantly. Inevitably, violence erupts. If a new group takes power and also fails to recognize human dignity, the cycle of destruction continues, only with different participants.

Recognizing human dignity and the universality of human rights isn’t just so individuals can be protected and respected. It’s for the good of the entire world. If everyone’s rights were respected and everyone got equal opportunities to thrive, the world would be a much happier, more peaceful place.

Learn more how you can defend and protect human dignity in a free online course .

You may also like

15 Examples of Gender Inequality in Everyday Life

11 Approaches to Alleviate World Hunger 

15 Facts About Malala Yousafzai

12 Ways Poverty Affects Society

15 Great Charities to Donate to in 2024

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Social Change 101: Meaning, Examples, Learning Opportunities

Rosa Parks: Biography, Quotes, Impact

Top 20 Issues Women Are Facing Today

Top 20 Issues Children Are Facing Today

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

Essay on Human Dignity

Students are often asked to write an essay on Human Dignity in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Human Dignity

What is human dignity.

Human dignity means treating every person with respect because they are valuable. It’s like saying every person is important, no matter who they are or where they come from. This idea is like a rule that helps us live together in peace.

Human Rights and Dignity

Human dignity is the heart of human rights. Rights like freedom and equality come from the belief that all people deserve respect. It’s like giving everyone a shield to protect them from being treated badly.

Respecting Others

To show human dignity, we should be kind and fair to others. It’s not just about not hurting people, but also about helping them feel good about themselves. When we respect others, we make the world a friendlier place.

Challenges to Dignity

Sometimes, people face bullying or unfair treatment, which attacks their dignity. Standing up against such wrongs is important. By doing so, we defend the value of each person and support a world where everyone is respected.

250 Words Essay on Human Dignity

Human dignity is the idea that every person is valuable and deserves respect. This means that no matter where you come from, what you look like, or what you believe in, you are important. Think of it like this: every person is like a precious gem that should be cared for and never harmed.

Why Human Dignity is Important

Human dignity is like the golden rule: treat others as you want to be treated. When we respect each other’s dignity, we create a world where everyone can feel safe and happy. This helps us get along better, make friends, and live peacefully. Without dignity, people might feel sad, scared, or alone.

Human Dignity in Our Lives

In school, human dignity shows up when teachers listen to students’ ideas and when students are kind to each other. At home, it’s when family members support one another. In the world, it means making sure everyone has food, a home, and a chance to learn.

Standing Up for Dignity

Sometimes, people’s dignity is not respected. When this happens, it’s important to stand up for them. This could be helping a friend who is being bullied or telling an adult when something is wrong. By doing this, you protect dignity and show that you care about others.

Human dignity is a simple yet powerful idea. It’s about seeing the worth in every person and acting with kindness. Remember, when you respect others, you help make the world a better place for everyone.

500 Words Essay on Human Dignity

Human dignity is a powerful idea that means every person is valuable and deserves respect. This idea is like a golden rule that tells us to treat others as we would like to be treated. It doesn’t matter where someone is from, what they look like, or what they believe in—every person has dignity just because they are human.

Human Dignity in Everyday Life

In our daily lives, human dignity can be seen in many ways. When a teacher listens to a student’s question with care, that’s dignity. When a doctor treats a patient, or when someone helps a person who is in trouble, they are showing respect for that person’s dignity. It means we recognize that everyone has the right to be happy, to speak their mind, and to live a life free from harm.

Human Dignity and Equality

Human dignity also means that all people should be treated as equals. No one is better or more important than anyone else. This is why there are rules and laws in countries around the world that try to make sure everyone is treated fairly. For example, when a girl and a boy are given the same chance to learn and play, it shows we value their dignity equally.

Human Dignity and Making Choices

Another part of human dignity is being able to make your own choices. This means that people should be able to decide things for themselves, like what they want to do when they grow up or what they believe is right and wrong. When we let others make choices for their own lives, we are showing respect for their dignity.

Challenges to Human Dignity

Sadly, not everyone’s dignity is always respected. Bullying, unfair treatment, and being mean to others are all ways that can hurt someone’s dignity. When this happens, it’s important to stand up and speak out. By doing this, we help protect the dignity of those who are being treated badly.

Our Role in Upholding Dignity

We all have a part to play in making sure we and the people around us are treated with dignity. This can be as simple as being kind, standing up for someone who is being picked on, or learning about different cultures to understand others better. When we do these things, we help create a world where everyone’s dignity is respected.

Human dignity is a special idea that touches every part of our lives. It reminds us that every person is important and deserves to be treated with kindness and respect. By understanding and upholding human dignity, we can make sure that we, and the people around us, live in a world that is fair and kind to everyone. Remember, it starts with you and the small acts of respect you show to others every day.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Human Behaviour
• Essay on Human Cloning
• Essay on Human Body System

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

The Ethics of Dignity of the Human Person

Corporate Ethics for Turbulent Markets

ISBN : 978-1-78756-192-2 , eISBN : 978-1-78756-191-5

Publication date: 30 April 2019

Executive Summary

This first chapter explores the basic foundation of corporate ethics: the human person in all its dignity and mystery, its corporeality and emotionality, and its cognitive and volitive capacities of moral development. Four fundamental characteristics of the human person, namely individuality, sociality, immanence, and transcendence, will be examined for their potential to understand, live, experience, and witness corporate ethics and morals. We explore the profound meaning and mystery of human personhood invoking several philosophies of the good and human dignity as exposed by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas in the West, by the doctrine of Dharma in the East as expounded by Gautama Buddha, Mahabharata, and Bhagavad Gita, and by Prophets Confucius and Tao, in the East. Several contemporary cases of great human personhood are analyzed: for example, Peace Nobel Laureate Nelson Mandela from South Africa (1993) and Peace Nobel Laureate Liu Xiaobo from China (2017) – cases of human abuse that turned into triumphs of human dignity.

Oswald A. J. Mascarenhas, S.J. (2019), "The Ethics of Dignity of the Human Person", Corporate Ethics for Turbulent Markets ( Corporate Ethics for Turbulent Markets ), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 11-41. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78756-191-520191002

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2019 Oswald A. J. Mascarenhas

Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence (CC BY 4.0). Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this book (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience. We are not physical beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a physical experience. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin 1

1.1. Introduction

Is it morally justifiable to alter human nature by tinkering with the genetic code?

Are we playing God with human nature in doing so?

Is it a symptom of our hubris – to improve upon God’s gift of sacred human nature?

Can we morally seek “mastery” over ourselves and others?

Do technologies enhancing human nature have unforeseeable and irreversible evil consequences?

Are these concerns similar to those raised against human reproductive technologies?

Or, are these moral concerns just cognitive biases that interfere with our moral reasoning?

These are also concerns of corporate ethics of HE. These concerns question our traditional doctrine of absolute human dignity which stems from the claim that God created man and woman in his own likeness unto immortality and eternity – the subject of this chapter. We need philosophically and morally to justify our concerns or psychologically explain away current resistance to HE. We must look carefully at arguments resisting HE as also arguments supporting it. We do this toward the end of this chapter.

Recent advances in the physical, social, biological, neurological, and anthropological sciences have not only spawned radical technological and market breakthroughs, but, more importantly, unearthed tremendous human potentiality for design, creativity and innovation, for invention, discovery, venture and entrepreneurship, for capital accumulation and wealth creation, for individual self-actualization and collective common good. We are experiencing a growing consciousness of the increased power that human beings have over nature and over the future development of the human race. This power can be both a blessing and a curse: it is a blessing if harnessed to do good, to preserve and respect human dignity, to bring about justice, and to promote peace and human solidarity; it can be a curse if the same power is abused to do evil, destroy human worth, generate unjust structures, and provoke war and terrorism, global destruction, and disintegration. We can make or mar our destiny.

What is man? What is being human? What is human personhood? What is corporate human personhood? A related philosophical and more fundamental question is: what is human ? And what is being good? Aristotle’s balanced formula for man was: man is a rational animal .

As a vegetative soul, the human is capable of nutrition, growth, and reproduction.

As an animal soul, the human is capable of movement, sensations, emotions, and experiences.

As a rational soul that unites the other two, the human is capable of knowledge and choice. That is, this rational soul expresses itself in the twofold activity of thinking and willing.

We are even more: our knowledge is reflective (i.e., we know that we know) and our choices are informed and reflective (i.e., we know what we are choosing, and we know why we are choosing it). Our skills and potential for knowledge and choice empower us to be “causes” or “authors” of our own actions, and hence, to be accountable and responsible for the consequences of our actions. Thus, being and action are intrinsically linked in the rational and voluntary nature of our human being.

On the surface, human behavior is basically a set of actions that are governed by one’s feelings, emotions, attitudes, and beliefs regarding proposed ends, ideals, goals, and objectives. In general, most decisions and actions stem from and are affected by our personality or character. To the extent that these decisions and actions are human, they are usually assessed by several dyadic qualifications such as right or wrong, good or bad, ethical or unethical, moral or immoral, just or unjust, and fair or unfair. In general, actions are praiseworthy if good, and blameworthy, if bad. If good, one should be credited for them; if bad, one must accept blame and responsibility for the intended and unintended consequences.

Ethics is concerned with responsible human behavior. Corporate ethics is concerned with responsible corporate governance in relation to decisions, actions, and their outcomes that affect the company as a whole. Good business executives execute good decisions and actions that generate good outcomes and avoid bad decisions and actions that result in bad or harmful consequences.

1.2. Why Ethics of Human Personhood?

Psychology as a science started with two distinct approaches: (1) one emerged as the study of human internal processes that are often difficult to observe directly and (2) single-minded focus on observable behaviors. The former began with the psychoanalytic tradition of Sigmund Freud who believed that the reasons why people act and feel as they do are deep within them; hence, change can be promoted only when people probe their psychic depths and bring to surface and awareness those inner, often unconscious, dynamics. The second approach (2) began with the empirical tradition of B. F. Skinner, its best exponent, called behaviorism, and assumed that the causes of people’s actions are the rewards or punishments, they called reinforcements, they have received; hence, a person’s life can be dramatically changed by precise adjustments in the administration of reinforcements.

From the psychoanalytic tradition of Sigmund Freud emerged two other approaches: (1) humanistic person-centered psychology that included the work of Carl Rogers who pioneered client-centered therapy and (2) humanistic projective psychology that includes the work of Fritz Perls, who pioneered Gestalt therapy. Both psychoanalytic and humanistic traditions, even though much different, understand human behavior in terms of motivational and emotional dynamics, both focus on promoting awareness as the basis for change, and both build theory using observations and direct experience. Both build their theories on clinical experience.

On the other hand, behaviorism focused on observable behaviors and the environmental conditions or contingencies that reinforce them. Citing the rules of science, behaviorism argued that before a phenomenon is accepted as a fact, it must be independently investigated by other scientists and replicated by them. This empirical tradition has evolved through many decades now. During the last five decades or so, the empirical tradition has employed statistical analysis of data collected from scientific experiments to analyze observable behaviors.

Many so-called cognitive theorists now focused on individual’s thoughts and emotions rather than just observable behaviors via environmental reinforcements. They explain behaviors in terms of people’s thoughts, attitudes, expectations, and interpretations about reinforcements. The cognitive psychology theorist seemed to have moved “inside the person” to search for the causes of behavior. Other volitional psychology theorists (e.g., Harry Farlow, Abraham Maslow, Douglas McGregor, and Fredrick Herzberg) have gone deeper to probe into human “motivations.”

Many so-called deterministic psychology theorists (e.g., Frederick Taylor, B. F. Skinner) have continued to view the person in observable mechanistic terms. The latter asserts that humans are information-processing machines that work like computers to solve problems, make decisions, and behave accordingly. By this view, human beings are machines waiting to be programmed by society through homes and schools, colleges and universities, workplaces, and worship places. Sociologist Talcott Parsons proposed yet another view. He portrayed the birth of each infant as the invasion of a barbarian; children are savages who need to be tamed. This infant-as-barbarian view is not too dissimilar to the view of the human person as a passive information-processing machine waiting to be programmed and tamed by society. Both views assert that society must shape and mold the person; both suggest that socializing agents and agencies like parents, home, teachers, school, and managers and the workplace should create the human self. Both view human development as something done by the social world to children, adolescents, and adults at various stages of their life.

Another approach considers humans as vital organisms , who, by their nature, explore, develop, and take challenges, and thus develop themselves, of course, supported by parents, teachers, and workplace superiors. Alfred Kohn (1999), Edward Deci and Richard Ryan (1985, 1990), and Pink (2009), to name a few, follow this approach in understanding intrinsic motivation. Their central thesis is that people develop through the process of organismic integration as they proactively engage their world. They believe that there is a basic tendency within people to move toward greater coherence and integrity in the organization of their inner world. Inherent in the nature of human development is the intrinsic tendency toward greater consistency and harmony within; that is, people are intrinsically motivated to integration and harmony (Deci, 1975, p. 80).

Even other psychologists have hinted at human organismic integration. Freud spoke of the synthetic function of the ego that suggested that throughout life people work to bring coherence to their experience and thus to the development of their own personality. Child psychologist Jean Piaget hypothesized a similar organizational principle in children, whereby they imbued everything with life. Carl Rogers and fellow humanistic psychologist Abraham Maslow spoke of the self-actualization principle within people leading them toward greater internal harmony and integrity. In a similar way, argue Deci and Ryan, people’s perceived sense of competence and perceived sense of autonomy enhance intrinsic motivation that empowers organismic integration. The development of integration in personality reveals who you truly are and indicates becoming all you are capable of – these ground and empower the concept of human authenticity.

A Taxonomy of Psychological Investigations into Human Identity.

1.3. Philosophy of the Human Person

It is in the philosophy of the human person we discuss transempirical concepts like human nature, human dignity, fundamental human rights, the human soul, and human destiny. We examine such concepts in this chapter so as to enrich our understanding of intrinsic motivation and the inherent integrative tendency that are so natural to us but one that are least lived and experienced. It is the human person (richly created and even more designed and engineered by God) that grounds our unique human nature, human personality, human dignity and authenticity, and human development and potential.

Nelson Mandela Fights for Human Dignity

Nelson Mandela, the freedom fighter who led the emancipation of South Africa from white minority rule, who emerged from 27 years in prison to become South Africa’s first elected black president and a global symbol of reconciliation, died, age 95, on Thursday, December 5, 2013, at 8:50 p.m. at his home in Houghton, Johannesburg, South Africa, after a protracted illness. As flags flew at half-mast across South Africa, a sense of loss, blended with memories of inspiration, spread from President Obama in Washington, DC, to the members of the British Royal Family and on to those who saw Mandela as an exemplar of a broader struggle for peace, harmony, and equality.

Pope Francis praised “the steadfast commitment shown by Mandela in promoting human dignity of all the nation’s citizens and in forging a new South Africa.” President Barack Obama eulogized: “He achieved more than could be expected of any man. I am one of the countless millions who drew inspiration from Nelson Mandela’s life. My very first political action, the first thing I ever did that involved an issue or a policy or politics, was a protest against apartheid.” Manmohan Singh, then Prime Minister of India, said, “A giant among men has passed away. This is as much India’s loss as South Africa’s. He was a true Gandhian. His life and work will remain a source of eternal inspiration for generations to come.” British Prime Minister David Cameron declared in London: “A great light has gone out in the world.” Russian President Vladimir V. Putin added: Mandela was “committed to the end of his days to the ideals of humanism and justice.” The French mourned differently: they bathed the Eiffel Tower in Paris in green, red, yellow, and blue – the colors of the South African flag. This is a testimony to the immense love, admiration, respect, and inspiration Mandela evoked across continents.

Nelson Mandela was born on July 18, 1918, in a royal family of the Xhosa-speaking Thembu tribe in the South African village of Mvezo. Mvezo was a remote hilltop village, a tiny hamlet of cows, corn, and mud huts in the rolling hills of the Transkei that still is snaked around by Mbashe River in the southeast of South Africa. His mother spent most of her working day drawing and hauling gallons of freshwater using a pair of donkeys to the white master she worked for in the nearest town. His father, Gadia Henry Mphakanyiswa, was a chief of the Thembu people, a subdivision of the Xhosa nation. Mandela was named Rolihlahla, meaning “troublemaker,” until his first day at school, when at age 7 his teacher, Miss Mdingane, unceremoniously renamed him Nelson to conform to the British bias in education.

Mandela was drawn to politics in his teens while listening to elders talk about the freedom they had before white rule. Educated at a Methodist missionary school and the University College of Fort Hare, then the only residential college for blacks in South Africa, where two years later he was expelled for leading a student protest. Thereafter, Nelson got arrested several times for treason. He was arrested again in 1962 on the charges of leaving the country illegally and incitement to strike – sentenced to five years in prison. In 1963, the police raided a farm in Rivonia where the ANC had set up its headquarters. The raiding police found a few documents disclosing that Mandela and his members were planning a conspiracy to overthrow the government. Consequently, the South African white rulers were determined to put Mandela and his comrades out of action. That same year in 1963, Mandela and eight other ANC leaders were charged with sabotage and conspiracy to overthrow the state capital. It was called the Rivonia Trial – named after the farm the defendants had conspired.

At Mandela’s suggestion, his comrades, certain of conviction, set out to turn the trial into a moral drama that would vindicate them in the court of world opinion. They admitted they had engaged in sabotage and tried to spell out its political justification. The four-hour speech Mandela opened the defense’s case was one of the most eloquent of his life. Conducting his own defense in 1963, Mandela spelt out a dream of racial equality. Mandela said in court: “I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to see realized. But, my lord, if it needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die” (The Guardian, 2001; Keller, 2013, p. 11). The Rivonia trial seemingly established Mr Mandela’s central role in the struggle against apartheid. He was sentenced to life in prison in 1964.

Under considerable pressure from liberals at home and abroad, including a nearly unanimous vote of the United Nations General Assembly to spare the defendants, the judge acquitted one and sentenced Mandela and the others to life in prison. P. W. Botha, then South Africa’s president, refused pardon. He offered to release Mr Mandela if he renounced violence. Mr Mandela refused saying that government should abandon apartheid first. Mandela was 44 when he was escorted on a ferry to the Robben Island prison in July 1963. Robben Island was shark-infected watershed seven miles off Cape Town. Over the centuries, the island was a naval garrison, a mental hospital, and a leper colony. But for Mandela and his comrades, the Island was a university. Mandela honed his skills as a leader, negotiator, and a proselytizer. Both black and white prison administrators found his charm and iron will irresistible. Perhaps because Mandela was so much revered, he was singled out for gratuitous cruelties by the authorities. Still, Mandela asserted that the prison had tempered any desire for vengeance by exposing him to sympathetic white guards.

He left the Victor Verster Prison, on Robben Island, near Cape Town, on February 11, 1990, after spending 27 years in apartheid jails. Nelson was now 71. He walked to an inevitable moral and political victory cheered by much of the then world. Mandela called it the “Long Walk to Freedom” in his 1994 Autobiography.

In 1990, when released from prison, Mandela persuaded the ANC to renounce violence in favor of peaceful negotiation. He won the trust of Frederick Willem de Klerk, the last president of South Africa in a Whites-only election, in their first meeting. This relationship helped to keep the negotiation on course for the next four years as violence raged on the streets of South Africa’s townships. Aside from de Klerk, Mandela won most white South Africans, who were reassured by his words of reconciliation. Mandela and de Klerk shared Nobel Prize for peace in 1993. The ANC won a majority in the election – Mandela assumed the role of the president of South Africa in 1994.

Mandela even established a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) that granted amnesty to soldiers, policemen, and even assassins, provided they confessed to what they had done. “Our goal was general amnesty in exchange for the truth,” said Bishop Desmond Tutu (who chaired the TRC) to Bloomberg News in a 1999 interview. The level of endurance, persistence, and altruism displayed by Nelson Mandela was exceptional and brought a major change in human thinking that all men and women are equal in each respect and all persons should live together in harmony and with equal opportunities.

Nelson Mandela embodies the spirit of ethics of human personhood. Bearing no grudge even after being imprisoned unfairly for 27 years, he championed the Gandhian way of fighting for freedom. Mandela’s humanity, leadership, commitment, and forgiveness are a source of learning for the entire world. He inspired millions of people, from school students to world leaders, to adopt a more peaceful approach, and to practice forbearance and forgiveness. He fought against not only white domination but also black domination, a champion of gender equality.

Ethical Questions

Nelson explained why he changed his nonviolence stance so abruptly to an armed one: “Forswearing nonviolence was not a moral principle but a strategy; there is no moral goodness in using an ineffective weapon.” Do you agree with this ethic, and why?

Before he would be sentenced for life imprisonment in 1963, Mandela said in court closing a four-hour-long speech, the best of his life: “I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to see realized. But, my lord, if it needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.” How do you view the depth of Mandela’s human personhood from this statement?

In 2007, when Bill Keller asked Mandela, “After such barbarous torment, how do you keep hatred in check?” Mandela answered: “Hating clouds the mind. It gets in the way of strategy. Leaders cannot afford to hate.” How would you deduce Mandela’s compassionate human personhood from this statement?

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Liu Xiaobo (2017)

Liu Xiaobo died Thursday, July 13, 2017, age 61, fighting liver cancer for more than a month after he was transferred from prison (where he was in the eighth year serving a 11-year term for “subversion”) to a civil hospital in northeast China. Born in December 1955, Liu was the son of a professor who remained a loyal communist party member, while his son was actively disobeying the party line. Liu was an academician and author specializing in literature and philosophy. China’s most famous political activist and prisoner, he was treated for terminal liver cancer in a heavily guarded hospital in northeastern China. Liu was the unsung hero along with other big name dissidents of the twentieth century.

A human rights activist, Liu took active part in the 1989 pro-democracy Tiananmen Square demonstrations and was arrested in 2008, after writing a pro-democracy manifesto titled charter 08 in which he demanded an end to one-party rule and called for improvements in human rights. Liu’s aim was not to trigger upheaval, but to encourage peaceful discussion. Charter 08 was signed by thousands of people in China. After a year in detention and a two-hour trial, he was sentenced in December 2009 for 11 years’ imprisonment for “inciting subversion of state power.” He was held incommunicado since, in an attempt to do away with any memory of him. Liu was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in December 2010 while in prison, and not even his family was allowed to travel to Norway to accept the award. The award was bestowed to an empty chair, which later became a symbol of China’s repression.

In the weeks before his death, Liu’s case got increasing international attention when world leaders such as German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, and Taiwan’s President, Tsai Ing-Wen, called upon China to permit Liu to travel abroad to receive palliative care that could extend his life. The government refused Liu and his family when they asked if Liu could be allowed to seek treatment abroad. Instead, the Government posted guards around his ward, deployed its army of Internet censors to rub out any expression of sympathy for him. The Chinese police kept Liu’s wife, Liu Xia, under house arrest and heavy surveillance. She was barred from speaking about Liu’s death and his cancer treatment.

Along with countless others, Amnesty International paid tribute to Liu: “Today we grieve the loss of a giant of human rights. Liu Xiaobo was a man of fierce intellect, principle, wit and above all, humanity” said Salil Shetty, Secretary-General to Amnesty International, in a statement (see The Statesman , Kolkata, Friday, July 14, 2017, pp. 1, 10). 2 Liu Xiaobo represents the best kind of dissent in China. He was China’s conscience. His suffering, death, and repression hold a message for China and the West.

There are good reasons why Western leaders should speak out loudly for China’s dissidents. China cannot retaliate too much as it depends upon the West for trade. Western silence may seem complicity, and Mr Xi may believe that jailing peaceful dissidents is normal. Our silence may encourage him to lock up yet more dissidents and activists. Moreover, those who risk everything in pursuit of democracy in China may feel discouraged that the West has abandoned them in their struggle for peace. Further, a vital principle is at stake. In recent years, there has been much debate in China about whether values are universal or culturally specific. Keeping quiet about Liu Xiaobo signals that the West tacitly agrees with Mr Xi, and what is worse, that there are no overarching ethical or moral values. China, like Western countries, is a signatory to the UN’s Universal Declaration, which says: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” If the West is too selfish and cynical to fight for these universal values when China openly flouts them, it risks eroding such values across the world and in its own countries too (See “Liu Xiaobo, China’s Conscience,” The Economist , July 15–21, 2017, Cover Page and page 9). 3

Ethical Reflections

Amnesty International paid tribute to Liu Xiaobo: “Today we grieve the loss of a giant of human rights. He was a man of fierce intellect, principle, wit and above all, humanity.” Explain.

“Liu Xiaobo represents the best kind of dissent in China. He was China’s conscience. His suffering, death and repression hold a message for China and the West.” Reflect.

Western silence about inhumanities to Liu Xiaobo may seem complicity, and Mr Xi might have believed that jailing peaceful dissidents is normal. Western silence may encourage China to lock up yet more dissidents and activists. What is your moral obligation in this regard?

“In recent years there has been much debate in China whether values are universal or culturally specific. Keeping quiet about Liu Xiaobo signals that the West tacitly agrees with this, and what is worse, there are no overarching ethical or moral values.” How would you counter this trend?

1.4. The Great Humanity of Nelson Mandela

“Mandela was no ordinary leader; he was a leader of leaders. His life was remarkable for its achievements. […] During his 27 years in jail, Mandela attained renown for his uncompromising commitment to fighting injustice. This made him an icon of the oppressed. His fight against apartheid was all the more laudable in that he engaged in principled negotiations with the white rulers to end it. […] When he walked out of jail in 1990, many believed that long decades in jail would have made him bitter and angry with his oppressors and that he would seek retribution. He showed the world there was another way to reach out and forgive one’s tormentors,” thus said the Deccan Herald Editorial (Saturday, December 7, 2013, p. 10). During the brutal years of his imprisonment on Robben Island, thanks to his own patience, humor, and capacity for forgiveness, he seemed freer behind bars than those who kept him there, locked up in their own self-demeaning prejudices ( The Financial Express , Editorial, Saturday, December 7, 2013, p. 7).

Mandela founded the TRC aimed at providing victims of the apartheid years with closure. The TRC did help uncover the truth about violence unleashed by the apartheid regime as well as its opponents, but it was only partially helpful in healing wounds or ending racial hatred. Mandela never hesitated to speak truth to power. He was uncompromising in expressing his anguish, even anger, over injustice. In 2003, Mandela lashed the United States for committing “unspeakable atrocities” and for risking a “holocaust” by invading Iraq. His words were prophetic and appealed to the conscience of millions, compelling even warring groups to lay down their guns to build peace. It will not be easy for the post-Mandela world to accept the challenge of his death – his moral authority will be sorely missed ( Deccan Herald editorial, Saturday, December 7, 2013, p. 10). Ever since Mandela voluntarily left the presidency of South Africa in 1999, he has brought his moral stature to bear elsewhere around the continents of the world – he was a broker of peace.

The question most often asked about Mandela was how, after South African whites had systematically crushed and humiliated his people, tortured and murdered many of his friends, and incarcerated him into prison for 27 long years, he could be so evidently free of spite and retribution. When preparing for the Mandela obituary in 2007, Bill Keller, columnist of International New York Times, asked Mandela, “After such barbarous torment, how do you keep hatred in check?” Mandela’s answer was almost dismissive: “Hating clouds the mind. It gets in the way of strategy. Leaders cannot afford to hate.” 4 He was an apostle against apartheid – a word that literally means “apartness” in the African language, but in reality means a system of racial gerrymandering that stripped blacks of their citizenship in the country of their origin and relegated them to USA-template “reservation” of so-called homelands and townships, a system that denied 80% of South Africans any voice in their own affairs.

Among Mandela’s many achievements, two stand out: (1) he was the world’s most inspiring example of fortitude, magnanimity, and human dignity in the face of oppression and opposition, serving over 27 years in prison for his belief that all men and women are equal. (2) Little short of the miraculous was the way he engineered and oversaw South Africa’s transformation from a byword for nastiness and narrowness into, at least in intent, a rainbow nation in which people, regardless of caste or color, were entitled to be treated with respect and human dignity. Nelson Mandela was awarded the Bharat Ratna, the highest Indian civilian award, in the year 1990.

His charisma was evident from his youth. He was a born leader who feared nobody, debased himself before no one, and never lost his sense of humor. He was handsome and comfortable in his own skin. In a country in which the myth of racial superiority was enshrined in law, he never for a moment doubted his right to equal treatment, and that of all his compatriots. For all the humiliation he suffered at the hands of white racists before he was released in 1990, he was never animated by feelings of revenge. He was himself utterly without prejudice, which is why he became a symbol of tolerance and justice across the globe. He was quite simply, a wonderful man ( The Financial Express , Editorial, Saturday, December 7, 2013, p. 7).

His persistent struggle against apartheid teaches us that if we are determined to achieve something, if we have true willingness to change something for humanity, it is never impossible to strike hard and win the battle. A right path could be difficult, long, and full of obstacles but it will definitely lead to success. His message of reconciliation, not vengeance, reaffirmed Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy that fighting violence with violence is never a good idea. The way he handled South Africa’s affairs after he assumed the presidential powers demonstrates the highest human values with regard to forgiveness, truth and altruism and social justice.

1.5. The Value and Function of Executive Personhood

We are uniquely sensitive or sense human beings fed by our five senses that are nuanced by observation, perception, internalization, and pleasure.

We are affective and feeling human beings also fed by our five senses, empowered and reinforced by our attitudes, beliefs, instincts and drives, needs and wants, desires and aspirations, and ambitions and dreams.

We are cognitive or knowing human beings with unique capacities for thinking, reasoning, explanation, experimentation, creativity and innovation, imagination and intuition, hindsight and foresight, and judgment and decisions.

We are volitive, voluntary , and intentional human beings who can deliberate, determine, use free will, choose, select, or “elect” among competing courses of alternative actions, subjects, objects, properties, and events.

The unity of these activities (i.e., sensitive, cognitive, affective, and volitive) has been identified by many scientists as the nexus of human personhood , the fundamental unity of us as persons. Contemporary science insists on the transcending unity of the human being brought about by different powers. Our thinking is an activity that is highly dependent upon choice and intimately affected by our emotional state (Strawson, 1959). According to Lopez Ibor (1964, p. 157ff), feeling is the bridge which enables biological data of sensory perception to reach the mind of evaluation, classification, and choice of a response. I choose to accept or reject ideas based upon how I feel about them, about their source, and about their relationship to my experience and manner of thinking. That is, I feel something, I quickly interpret my feelings intellectually, and react to both by choosing a course of action. We are publicly identified by the possession of a cluster of different attributes, some bodily, some behavioral, and some mental and some volitional, and we call them our “character” or our “personality.”

In the Greek classic tradition, this human personhood is represented by the “soul” that unifies the body and spirit, the physical and the mental, the understanding and the will, the voluntary and the involuntary, and human instincts and human drives (Harré & Shorter, 1983; Strawson, 1959). Whether one holds with Socrates that all knowledge is innate ready to be drawn out through education ( e-ducere in Latin), or with Plato that all knowledge is fundamentally remembering, or with Aristotle that all knowledge begins with sensation, in any case, the raw data for our reasoning are given through our sensory organs of the body working in harmony with the soul (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae , Ia, pp. 77–78, 84–85). The unifying principle and power is the human person.

Our family and school stimuli : Our childhood experiences of our parents, nursery school, siblings, grandparents, and relatives; our adolescent experiences of peers and teachers at middle and high schools, colleges, and universities.

Our ergonomic stimuli : Experiences of the workplace in relation to gainful work, meaningful work, co-workers and labor unions, native talent perfected, new skills picked up, new sources of income and rewards merited, and the like.

Our market stimuli : The whole world of supply and demand, consumer buying power and shopping, an expanding world of thousands of brands, products, services, newspapers, magazines, radio, television, movies, music, stores, malls, supermarkets, transportation, logistics, brick-and-mortar markets, Internet markets, www, blogs, e-bulletins, and Facebook.

Our ideological stimuli : Our unique value-experiences derived from our society, art and poetry, language and literature, science and fiction, textbooks and novels, libraries and art galleries, local, national and global governments, law and order systems, religion and religious institutions, politics and political agenda, history and culture, and philosophy and theology.

Our human personhood receives, internalizes, filters, sorts, unifies, blends, lives, and relives all the internal and external stimuli in a mysterious, transcending synthesis and unity that really defines us. Given the internal and external stimuli, that is, our physical, spatial, and temporal worlds, our human personhood develops certain personality characteristics, behavior patterns, cultivates certain virtues (or vices), capacities or limitations, needs and wants, desires and dreams, habits and passions of heart, ethics and morals, and transforms us into responsible (or irresponsible) persons. These phenomena of internal and external stimuli make and mold us as “human resources” ready for contributing back to society and the world.

How this mysterious unity or self-attribution is done is still debated. Various religions attribute this to a superior power in us that some call the soul, the spirit, the mind, the atman, the transcendent, the immanent, or the divine in us. Others trace this power to our genes and chromosomes, or the mysterious neural-physical body that we are endowed and engineered with. It is because of this unity that we say: I feel, I speak, I did this, and not that our body feels, our body speaks or that our body does something. More importantly, we say: I own certain actions and their consequences, and hence we assert: I did this, I chose this, I am accountable for this choice and the deed that follows, and I am responsible for the effects or outcomes. It is because of this superior power in us that we can formulate a mission (personal, corporate, social, or political) for ourselves that is beyond ourselves, a vision to realize this mission, and accordingly, we can spell ideals, ends, goals, objectives, and the means to achieve this mission. It is because of this body-spirit, matter-mind unity, the body becomes the home of the soul, the home of our intelligence, the home of our virtue or vice, the home of ethics and morals, and the home of our responsibility. Hence, the body becomes human, is humanized, and is sacred.

Figure 1.1:

The Human Personhood as the Foundation for Executive Ethics.

1.6. What Constitutes Our Human Personhood?

Obviously, the human person is not a simple or random by-product of the internal and external stimuli, such as those depicted in Figure 1.1 . Our human personhood is a unique combination of four internal–external forces that unify, interpret, internalize, and respond to the internal–external stimuli: our immanence, individuality, sociality , and transcendence. We explore each of these four human vectors from the viewpoint of corporate executive ethical decisions, actions, and duties.

1.6.1. Our Unique Immanence

Etymologically, immanence (in + manere in Latin) means to remain in, or to be operating and living within something. We are living within our state that is within our country that is within this earth, which is within the solar system that is within the universe. We are immanent in the world and in the universe. The human person dwells in immanence. That is, we are incarnated in a world that is physical; both humans and the world are characterized as dwelling in the universe that is in a unique intersection of time, space, motion, and gravitation. Our immanence is unique and irrevocable: we were birthed into this world at the unique interaction of the sun, moon and the seasons, galaxies and constellations, stars and zodiacs, earth and planets, time, space, gravitation, and motion. Oriental philosophers and astronomers (e.g., China, India) have explored this aspect of our unique geo-cosmic immanence. We are uniquely individualized and personalized by the unique intersection of hundreds of celestial bodies listed above. Hence, we are unique, non-imitable, non-substitutable, non-replaceable, non-replicable, non-repeatable, and non-transferable. Each of us has a unique role and responsibility for the universe that only we can fulfill.

Our immanence has two aspects: (1) we are corporeal-material in nature; (2) we are living physical organisms made up of flesh and blood. Because of our immanence, we have needs, wants, and desires; we have also, thereby, capacities and limitations. Our needs and limitations are sourced in the interactions and unity that exist between each human being and its environment. We are bound by the physical laws of the universe, and we are limited by the physical capabilities of our muscular and skeletal structure and physical fitness. Accordingly, our needs, wants, desires, dreams, skills, and limitations change depending upon our age, gender, education, occupation, culture, religion, and where we are at any given moment.

Needs and limitations, however, do not define us. There is a unity between our corporeality and the flesh and blood living organism that we are. The body is the way in which the person is; it is the source of our being in the world. The body is the foundation for feeling and the place where feelings are experienced. It is the home of the intelligence. Without the body, there cannot be a human person. On the other hand, our body cannot be the sole source and locus of our human personhood. There is a unity between the human person and the body, but also a distinction. The body needs a principle to vivify it and provide a source of unity for the body with its corporeal function, activities, and processes of human nature. The Greeks and several religions call this principle of unity the soul ( atman in Sanskrit, pneuma in Greek, anima in Latin). Without the soul or spirit as the unifying principle, we cannot be human persons, and without the body, we cannot be human persons either; we need and are a unique combination of the two. Only human beings composed of spirit and body, mind and matter can be human persons; to be human beings is to be both spiritual and corporeal. 5

This is systems thinking applied to the human person: we are more than the efficiency of the body or the spirit, taken individually; we are an interactive whole that has energy, direction, drive, power, and passion far beyond the power of the body and soul taken individually. Ethics must see the human person not only in our universal aspects but in our unique combination of mind and matter, body and soul, time and eternity, and unique immanence.

1.7. Our Unique Individuality

The soul when joined to the body becomes the unifying principle of all activities and becomes the seat of intelligence and will. Because of this soul or spirit, we are immanent in the world in a unique way: we can sense the world, feel the world, love the world, explore, study and know the world, experiment, change and manipulate the world, and control, forecast and predict the world. It is precisely this interconnectedness between the spiritual principle of the soul and the unique corporeality of our body that gives rise to the unique “individuality” by which we identify the presence of the human person, and that we own our actions as not performed by the body or by the soul in isolation, but as an unity and immanent combination of the body and the soul whereby we say “I did it” or “we did it.” In the unique joining of the soul and the body, something new comes into being that is greater than the mere sum of the parts (soul and body) added together – this is the unique human person.

Writing about his deep personal convictions that he picked up from many years of client-centered therapy, its great founder Carl R. Rogers in his best-seller On Becoming a Person (1961/1989, p. 21) wrote, “It has come to me that the separateness of individuals, the right of each individual to utilize his experience in his own way and discover his meanings in it, – this is one of the most priceless potentialities of life. Each person is an island unto himself, in a very real sense; and he can only build bridges to other islands if he is first of all willing to be himself and permitted to be himself.”

We are a unique combination of body and soul, mind and matter, faculties and powers, the conscious and the unconscious, the physical and the emotional, the intellectual and the spiritual, the individual and the social, and the ethical and moral parts of our human personality. Such a unique combination makes knowledge, thought, talent and skills, choice and freedom possible. Such a unique process of individuation is not a simple or random by-product of our body and genes, or a victim of biological and economic exigencies of our human world. All these (including our genes and genetic compositions) will not determine and control who we are and what we become. Nor will our talents and skills, knowledge and thoughts, and willed actions and behaviors totally determine the outcome of our individual development. They all contribute to our specific personality and uniqueness.

Our unique, non-repeatable, irreducible, and irreplaceable individuality cannot be fully understood and explained unless we accept that our uniqueness comes from being uniquely shaped and molded into the image of God (or some such superior being) who crafted us into this unique and historical composition of the body and soul, mind and matter, family, social and historical environments. We are a unique meeting point between soul and body, the corporeal and the spiritual, the physical and the social that we call the human personality or individuality. Each of us, accordingly, is born with a unique destiny that forges and converges each one of us into a unique transcendent openness of possibility that translates (from a near infinite number of possibilities) into a unique combination of talents and skills, knowledge and ideologies, thoughts and actions, moral qualities and events, virtues and values. That is, we are a limited but immanent and transcendent expression of unique human personhood we claim as our personal mission, vision, character, and self-identity. This particular course of our growth and change, consciously or unconsciously, leads to the development of our personality and within the structure of this personality will eventually emerge a certain “character” by which we designate ourselves as “I,” “Ego,”“Me” and experience consciously, express and project externally in society as “self.”

1.8. Our Unique Sociality

We do not live, move, and have our being in isolation. Because of our unique immanence and individuality, we are social creatures, members of a common human species. We can sense, feel, and manipulate the world around as animals do. But far more than animals, we have “knowledge,” because the activity of knowing is dependent upon a deeper reality, that of sharing. Knowledge by its very essence is relational . Psychologists, philosophers, and sociologists are all in agreement that our immanence and individuality are inseparable from our sociality. That is, unless there is another who is like me yet distinct from me, I can never come to a full understanding of who I am and what I am . Our very existence is dependent upon this social quality of human personhood. This principle can be the foundation for human resources management, especially as recruitment, development and retention, and as teamwork and spirit.

Even at the biological level, the physical structure of our body or corporeality is fundamentally social. Thus, our genes exist in strands of DNA that form pairs of chromosomes; our birth is conditioned on two individuals coming together; the basic genetic material of our corporeality comes to us from others. Human reproduction, unlike animal reproduction, is not merely instinctual, but a profound social experience of courting, conceiving, nesting, birthing, parenting, nurturing, and other family activities, each of which contributes to our sociality of nurturance and dependence. From the first moment of human existence until the last, human life is profoundly social (Rehrauer, 1996, pp. 37–38).

We are individuals precisely because we are social beings. By our very nature, we are gregarious beings. We need contact with other beings like ourselves in order to understand that we are human and what this means. Without sociality there is no individuality. We are born and inserted into society. We cannot be personalized human persons in isolation. It is through our social contacts that we activate and develop the ability to be individual and social, to be ethical and moral . The child becomes aware as a person, as a human being of a particular individuality, as a function of its relations with other human beings. Social action precedes the self and provides the materials for it (Asch, 1987, p. 286; Flanagan, 1991, p. 122). In this sense, our sociality precedes and grounds our individuality.

Human personhood is more than our personality. We primarily develop our human personalities precisely because all human beings share a common social being. Our fundamental nature of human personhood (expressed as being sensitive, affective, cognitive, and volitive) becomes alive through our sociality. The nature and development of our individuality are a social product of both the social nature of our genetic heritage and the quality of our social interactions with others and with our cultural heritage as a whole. We carry in our bones and in our minds, in our genetic and cultural sources, something of all of those who have gone ahead of us and those who have been part of our lives. Our basic sociality takes us from the nuclear family we are born into broader groups such as ethnic, cultural, linguistic, national, religious, ergonomic, political, and other group affiliations. We learn to be a member of a given society by coming to know and practice the norms, rules, conventions and mores of that society. Societies and social regulations develop, pattern, and shape our thinking, action, and behavior. We not only learn about social regulations, but also learn to live within the framework and under the guidance of these social regulations (Heller, 1988, p. 19).

This is the metaphysical and transcendent foundation of our individuality, immanence, parenthood, and sociality. Our family and society, our history and culture, our values and religion, and our interpersonal networking with others around us all of these contribute to the makeup of who we are, what we are, and who we are becoming, of how ethical and moral we are and can become (Flanagan, 1991). In particular, social systems of language, tradition, technology and communication, signs and symbols, leaders, values and history, culture and civilization, morals, and mores form an important part of our social and individual world. It is within the context of this specific community that our individuality, sociality, immanence, and transcendence are situated and contextualized.

1.9. Our Unique Transcendence

Etymologically (from Latin ascendere = to climb; transcendere = to go beyond, to surpass), transcendence implies going beyond one’s sense and experience, emotions and feelings, knowledge and skills, capacities, and limitations, in order to achieve excellence, moral integrity, and extraordinary heights of self-actualization. In Kantian philosophy, transcendence means going beyond sense data and hypothetical imperatives to categorical moral imperatives inherent in the organizing function of the mind and the will, and which are necessary conditions for human knowledge. 6

Human transcendence is founded on our nature as human beings, the inherent nature of our self-awareness as “I am” and as distinct from others, the transpersonal nature of human personhood, the externalizing expression of underlying personhood through the process of character formation, and with a world in which we are immersed yet which is totally other than us – all these reveal the foundational reality or human transcendence. Our self-understanding is not purely individualistic; it is relational; that is, in contact with other persons and with the world of other human beings do I begin to understand myself (Fuchs, 1983, p. 177). As Erich Fromm (1955, p. 62) notes, it is only after we have conceived of the outer world as being separate and different from ourselves that we come to self-awareness as a distinct being from others.

Our self-awareness and self-identity are beyond the sum total of our experiences. We do not identify ourselves with our experiences, even though they may be engaging and memorable; neither do we define ourselves by what we see since we see, understand, and identify ourselves beyond and beneath our day-to-day experiences. That is, we transcend our experiences; our self-awareness and self-identity are beyond the totality of our experiences of sensing, feeling, perceiving, observing, believing, choosing, acting, and accomplishing. This is because our human being-ness and our human personhood underlie our experiences and unify them. This underlying personal being is transcendence even of our own personal identity. Our personhood as personhood is often inaccessible even to us because it is a creative reality with continuous possibility for change. But our immanence and transcendence unify all our changes and experiences into a meaningful whole which we call our character or personality or self-identity.

Our transcendence also grounds our ability to hope, to dream, to design, to create, to invent, to innovate, to discover, and to venture – all these we do for what is not yet accomplished. Our transcendence also empowers us to plan our future, to make plans not only for what we will do, but for what we will not do, and for what we want to become and not become. We are transcendent because we are temporal beings who are aware of our temporality. Our very nature as temporal beings leads us to define and plan our lives in terms of meaningful past, present, and future. Our capacity for the future is the recognition of the reality of our transcendence. It is because of our transcendence we have a future, or better, we are a future, or that we can reinvent our future. In our actions, we extend ourselves over a span of time from past into the future. But in our moral act and behavior, we transcend even the mere span of time, as we touch on the divine and eternal in us. All the above statements apply to organizations and corporations: our organizational transcendence makes us surpass ourselves, our constraints, and our competition and drives us to seek the impossible dream.

We can also think of “the transcendent” in the theological sense as God or in the philosophical (specifically, Kantian) sense as that which is beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge (i.e., that which is a priori and a necessary condition of human experience as determined by the constitution of the mind). Likewise, “the immanent” may refer to either the theological indwelling presence of God in the world and each individual (God among us) or that which operates within the subject (our life force). Finally, “vital agent” may refer to either the Holy Spirit (the divine life-giver) or that which gives the agent his or her conscious functions (the animating source of the independent conscience (Moberg & Calkins, 2001, fn. iv, p. 267).

Our human individuality as corporate executives makes our actions (decisions and strategies) personal, with obligations of due ownership of the choices of inputs, processes, and outputs we make.

Our human sociality as corporate executives makes our acts and actions (decisions and strategies) social and society oriented or common-good oriented, with summons for social due diligence of the choices of inputs, processes, and outputs we make.

Our human immanence as corporate executives makes our decisions and strategies, acts, actions and activities concrete, historical, geographical, contextual, bounded by concrete space (spatiality) and time (temporality), and hence, uniquely situational, irreversible, existential, and accountable for their consequences.

Our human transcendence as corporate executives makes our decisions and strategies, actions, activities, acts and planned actions, meta-individual, trans-social, and trans-organizational in relation to the choices of inputs, processes, and outputs we make, such that transcendent organizations are empowered to surpass themselves, their goals, and objectives.

As temporal beings, we are capable of many actions and choose many alternatives; we have within our grasp an enormous range of events with their specific inputs, processes, and outputs. We choose some of these and reject other competing alternatives. In the search, deliberation, choice, and subsequent actions lies our transcendence – the power to bring unity, consistency and continuity in our thoughts, desires and actions, to bring forth order in otherwise chaotic choices and environments, and correspondingly, into our relationships with others (Asch, 1987, pp. 122–123). As subjects who are temporal, we transcend our activity, and this demands of us that we actively integrate every moment of our existence into a broader pattern of self-conscious awareness (Rehrauer, 1996, pp. 45–47).

The discussion on our unique and essential experience of transcendence, in conjunction with our immanence, individuality, and sociality, can be applied, mutatis mutandis , to the corporation as a whole, since it is composed of real human persons, all of whom are radically individual, immanent, and social in being and becoming. Transcendence can be experienced and incorporated into our otherwise mundane and materialistic, competitive, and aggressive corporate personality and strategy. This is the foundation for corporate executive transcendent spirituality. Thus, we can understand, interpret, and apply the construct of our unique and necessary transcendence to define and live our corporate spiritual individuality and immanence, individuality, and sociality .

Unique individuality : Being born in a royal family, Nelson Mandela had the required confidence and leadership abilities.

Unique sociality : Mandela was affected by social oppression; he fought not only for racial equality but also for gender equality.

Unique immanence : The objective of non-discrimination was achieved, and Mandela was unanimously elected as the president of the nation. He took care of his country, his people, and his followers.

Unique transcendence : Mandela rose above hatred and vengeance, even after being cruelly oppressed in prison. He included colored and non-colored, men and women in his dream of a perfect apartheid free nation. He mentioned that hatred clouds the mind and a leader cannot afford to hate.

As corporate executives, we are responsible to our unique individuality of talents and skills, passions and drives, attitudes and perceptions, feelings and emotions, and that is specifically individuated about us. While we expect others to respect our individuality, we must also learn to respect the unique individuality of our employees, customers, distributors, creditors, suppliers, local and national communities, and even our competitors.

As corporate executives, we are responsible to our unique sociality , our social talents and skills, and our unique capacity to interact, network, bargain, negotiate, argue, persuade, and lead people. While we expect others to respect our sociality, we must also learn to respect the unique sociality of our subjects and reports, customers and partners, competitors and regulators, and shareholders and all stakeholders alike.

Lastly, as corporate executives, we are responsible to our unique transcendence , our unique mystique and philosophy, our unique vision and mission, our unique ideals and ideologies, our unique values and virtues, our unique brand of inspiring and moral leadership, and our unique ministry of servant leadership. While we expect others to respect our unique transcendence, we must also learn to respect the unique and inaccessible transcendence of others, our subjects and reports, our customers and partners, our employees and their families, and our local and global stakeholders alike.

Figure 1.2:

The Quadri-directional Responsibility of Human Personhood: The Challenge of Executive Ethics.

Martin Heidegger once wrote that caring for things demands immanence in God (Heidegger, 1985). The ethics of human personhood suggests that we too may try to see the world as the face of God and organize our business accordingly (Heidegger, 1985).

1.10. Current Controversy of Human Dignity vs Human Enhancement

In bioethics, the term “human enhancement” refers to any kind of genetic, biomedical, or pharmaceutical intervention aimed at improving human dispositions, capacities, and well-being, even though there is no pathology to be treated (Giubilini & Sanyal, 2015). For instance, such interventions include selecting embryos before implantation during in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures, inserting or deleting gene sequences, taking enhancing drugs for better physical or mental performance, pursuing life extension through stem cell applications, and other regenerative medical procedures (Giubilini & Sanyal, 2016).

1.11. Arguments for Human Enhancement

People should be free to enhance themselves (and their offspring) through various means mentioned above (including genetic engineering embryos) – this position is usually dubbed as bio-liberal .

HE may actually promote human dignity by improving those qualities and virtues that confer a special worth on human beings (Bostrom, 2008, p. 175).

Opposition to enhancement as violations of human dignity is based on a notion of human dignity that is too vague or that it adds nothing to bioethical discussion (Macklin, 2003). In fact, the notion of human dignity is a stupid concept that is relative, fungible, and even potentially harmful and deceptive (Pinker, 2008).

Far from being opposed to equality, HE can be used to make up for the unfairness of “genetic lottery” by bringing the least fortunate up to a decent minimum of capacity and well-being (Savulescu, 2006). In this view, one could even institute a policy whereby enhancements are subsidized for those who cannot afford them – this could level the playing field (Buchanan, 2011; Mehlman, 2009).

Other utilitarian considerations in favor of HE take into account the cost to society (rather than to the individual) of failing to enhance the individual (Levy, 2013).

While indiscriminate HE may be irresponsible, some enhancements are highly positive with low negative externalities.

HEs, however, should not be imposed or subsidized by the state for certain groups of people.

1.12. Arguments Restricting Human Enhancement

While HE in principle may be defensible, there are certain objectionable forms of enhancements such as the wealthy having access to enhancement that is not accessible to the poor, thus exacerbating and increasing the already marked inequalities between the rich and the poor (McKibben, 2004; Mehlman, 2003; Mehlman & Botkin, 1998) – this position is usually dubbed as bio-conservative .

Enhancement carried out over several generations may create two separate human species, one of which will have the power to dominate the other (Silver, 1997).

HE is in principle (i.e., per se) objectionable, as it violates the intrinsic sanctity of nature and human dignity of life; it is “playing God” to improve upon human nature.

It is human hubris to be dissatisfied with what God has endowed humans and exploit biotechnology of HE to make up for God. Enhancing human nature while disregarding the potential and unknown risk itself reveals certain hubris. Humans are neither omniscient nor benevolent and might therefore overlook the risks of tampering with genes.

In the process of improving upon God, we may create human “monsters” (Krauthammer, 2002, p. 202) that might violate human nature, human dignity, God’s gift of being human (Cohen, 2006; Fukuyama, 2002; Kass, 1997; Levin, 2003; Sandel, 2004, 2007).

A major limitation of the drive to “mastery” is its failure to appreciate the “giftedness of human life” or its “openness to the unbidden” (Sandel, 2007). This failure not only jeopardizes humility but also human solidarity as some HE advocates would assume upon themselves the hyper agency in determining exactly what kinds of people should exist and be left as a legacy.

More than social or political issues, HE raises moral issues regarding the meaning and value of life and death, the notion of personhood, the extent to which human life can be used as a commodity or as a means to one’s ends.

Francis Fukuyama (2002, pp. 74–75, 92–93) argues that HE is dangerous because the interactions between single genes and phenotypic gene or genetic sequence to obtain a desirable trait might have bad unintended consequences for the expression of other desirable traits.

With certain HE technologies, we may get more easily what we asked for only to realize it is vastly less than what we really wanted and at a big cost to humanity (Kass, 2008, p. 303) – this is also called the “perversity thesis” ( President’s Council on Bioethics, 2002 , p. 287). That is, there is a “precisely balanced” human nature such that any HE intervention to alter it could have disastrous consequences.

Some people generally in favor of HE may oppose specific types of enhancement such as certain radical and impermissible forms of HE that may lead to a new species (e.g., post-humans – see Fukuyama, 2002) or a new state of what is normal humanity (Agar, 2013) or may need a new rule to define a given activity (e.g., doping in sport). Others oppose certain specific methods of HE that are problematic (e.g., genetic manipulation of embryos changing genetic identity of individuals may be more problematic that selecting a certain embryo in IVF procedures).

According to Eric Cohen (2006), there is a “moral anthropology” by which we recognize a special dignity in all human beings, which is an essential feature of human nature rather than something based on contingent properties (e.g., rationality or self-awareness). Human anthropology calls for a recognition of human experience as something beyond our comprehension that gives a special meaning to our morality as the sign of the mystery surrounding our transcendent yet authentic human experience, something we cannot fully “master” (Cohen, 2006, p. 49) via human cloning, gamete engineering, creating man-animal hybrids that exert novel parental control over genetic makeup of new life, creation of human-animal chimera embryos or eugenic projects, and the manufacturing and selling of human body parts. In Chapter 5, we will revisit the problem of HE and apply moral reasoning methods to assess their justification.

1.13. What is Human Nature or Dignity and Why and How Sacrosanct Is It?

Bio-conservatives frequently invoke human dignity to argue against HE. 7 There is no single definition of human dignity as the term itself is abstract and highly ambiguous (Fukuyama, 2002, p. 148; Kass, 2008, p. 306). Hence, authors propose different and often conflicting interpretations of human dignity based on varied concepts of allied constructs such as being human, human personhood, human life, human nature, human equality, rationality, autonomy, freedom, moral worth, basic human goals and values, and human destiny.

An important distinction between conceptions of human dignity is the exclusive, comparative, or aristocratic–elitist notion as opposed to the inclusive, non-comparative, egalitarian, and universal notion. The former is the presumptive notion of full dignity of being human predicated by a sense of worthiness and nobility that is found not in every human being but only in those with certain excellences, virtues, or capacities – this is close to the divine monarchical right of kings or the “blueblood” or “Brahmin” concept of exclusive dignity. The second is non-comparative egalitarian notion that “basic dignity of being human” is shared by all forms of human life. Both concepts considered separately are problematic and with shortcomings. The former is exclusive and monarchical and seems to have had some historical roots, while the latter, according to Kass (2008, pp. 316–320), cannot be justified on any ontological or theological grounds.

Accordingly, Kass (2008, pp. 323–324) proposes an in-between position of human dignity, half-way between other animals and God. Humans are god-like and have aspirations toward what is higher and thus, are more than an animal. But they are dependent on their embodied nature for everything high about human life – the latter trait of dependence, according to Kass (2008, pp. 321–322), seemingly reconciles the comparative exclusive and non-comparative inclusive notions of human dignity. “The fullest dignity of the god-like animal is realized in its acknowledgment and celebration of the divine” (Kass, 2008, p. 329). That is, both concepts cannot be reconciled or defended unless from the context of religious beliefs that formed it (Meilaender, 2008, pp. 262–263). In the final analysis, following Emmanuel Kant, our exclusive distinction from the animals based on human dignity should have to be based on our rationality (Lee & George, 2008, p. 410).

The most significant threat posed by HE is that it may alter human nature and thereby usher us into a “post-human” stage of history (Fukuyama, 2002, p. 7); or that it may jeopardize the idea of a natural quality among human beings. By sharing the same human nature, humans, qua humans, have equal dignity. Altering human nature via HE (say, by embryo or gene selection) would violate the God-given gift of being “begotten” and replace it by being made or manufactured via HE (President’s Council of Bioethics, 2002, p. 112).

Liberals, however, oppose this normative concept of human nature as alternatives to a monolithic concept of human nature have characterized our species (Lewens, 2012). Human nature cannot have normative value un-problematically because it contains both good and bad aspects. Our concept of the good is independent of, and indeed is used to evaluate, human nature (Buchanan, 2009).

There is a general fear that genetic manipulation technologies might blur existing species boundaries – that genetic manipulation and engineering could create a new human species (Annas, Andrews, & Isasi, 2002). However, as Eric Juengst (2009, p. 50) notes, we cannot literally preserve the species against all genetic change. In the history of evolution, genetic profiles associated with a species do change, as existing individuals pass away and new ones are born. Without much exogenous intervention in the process, the typical genome of a given species is likely to vary both over time and across populations that are geographically separated with little interaction. If we must choose the current human species-typical genome as sacrosanct, then it may indicate certain arbitrariness to take a snapshot at a particular point in time and space to be the general and final definition of human species.

This argument makes the current theory of the inviolability of the sacrosanctity and dignity of our human species less plausible. It also asks what specific psychobiological features of our human species make us specifically human and bestow a moral status to us (see Annas et al., 2002). Also, what human rights attach to individual humans as specific human species with a moral status? A subspecies of humans created by genetic interventions or by HE might come to possess relevant human characteristics to such a heightened degree that it no longer makes sense to assign ordinary humans as much moral status as the new subspecies. This argument turns the current “hubris” argument against HE in the favor of HE (see Douglas, 2013).

1.14. Concluding Remarks: Executive Freedom and Transcendence

An important aspect of our transcendence and our nature as executive human persons is our free will or the realm of our freedom. Our executive freedom is twofold: (1) we are free to make choices; (2) we are thereby free to determine the direction and meaning of our existence. When we categorically exercise this twofold freedom, we exercise the basic transcendental freedom, which is the freedom to create ourselves. Freedom of choice is largely dependent upon the domain and situation of choices – it is situational. Our transcendental freedom whereby we determine the meaning and direction of our existence is the autonomy of character which expresses the person behind the character. My choices may be limited, but I can still be free in the autonomy of personhood that makes the choices. As Agnes Heller (1988, p. 54) puts it: the referent of liberty is action; the referent of autonomy is character. A completely autonomous person may have no choices whatever owing to circumstances, but still be totally autonomous . Often, there might be no external (e.g., market or economic or political) choices whatsoever, but there are real choices from within: to do or not to do, to become or not to become, to be or not to be. This is autonomy at its best.

Personal executive autonomy is our transcendence over situations; it is mind over matter, soul over body, the absolute over relative, the eternal over temporal, and life over death. We cannot choose our birth, our genetics, our parents, our gender, our race, our nationality, and our culture – they are the “givens” of our immanence. But still our transcendence enables us to go beyond these constraints to exercise our autonomous freedom to create a meaningful existence and personal history. Human transcendence may not be absolute transcendence, but it is transcendence nevertheless (John Paul II: Veritatis Splendor , pp. 35–53). Nelson Mandela exercised his transcendent freedom while he was jailed for 27 years; he used all his apartheid prison years to learn, form, and transform himself. He was more free and transforming than the people who imprisoned him.

All these are aspects or dimensions of our individuality, sociality, transcendence, and immanence. But, in the final analysis, human transcendence is grounded primarily in its openness to the absolute transcendence of God. The human person possesses a dignity precisely in that it is a created reality which is able to open itself to the One who creates. That is, our human transcendence is properly understood only in relationship to God’s absolute transcendence (John Paul II: Veritatis Splendor , pp. 28, 67, 72, 73, and 87). Thus, our human personhood as a reality is individual and social, immanent and transcendent. This is the theology of executive spirituality.

Hence, given our individuality, sociality, immanence, and transcendence, major values and responsibilities accrue. There is a multidirectional responsibility involved in being human. There is, additionally, a multidirectional responsibility involved in being an executive. We are responsible not only for what we are (immanence), but who we are (individuality), what we do (sociality), and what we have become (transcendence). That is, we are responsible for our individuality, sociality, immanence, and transcendence, individually and collectively; that is, we are responsible to ourselves (individuality), to others, our community, society and culture (sociality), to the world and the universe we are immersed and living in (immanence), and to God who created us and whose absolute transcendence we share, and to something beyond ourselves, society, and the universe (transcendence).

Cited in Stephen Covey (2000).

Retrieved from Nobel Laureate Liu dies at 61. The Statesman , Kolkata, Friday, July, 14, 2017, pp. 1, 10. Retrieved from http://epaper.thestatesman.com/1281145/Kolkata-The-Statesman/14th-July-2017#page/1/2

Retrieved from Liu Xiaobo, China’s Conscience. Cover Page and p. 9 of The Economist , July 15–21, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/07/15/liu-xiaobos-death-holds-a-message-for-china

Keller (2013).

Over against the quantitative theory that held all economic actions were driven by mathematical expectations of benefits, John Maynard Keynes, the famed economist, coined and introduced the term “animal spirits” into economics, with which he meant our souls that animate us, or consequently, our spontaneous urges that give meaning and energy to our acts. “Most of our decisions to do something positive, the full consequences of which will be drawn out over many days to come, can only be taken as a result of animal spirits – of a spontaneous urge to action rather than inaction, and not the outcome of a weighted average of quantitative benefits multiplied by quantitative probabilities. An enterprise only pretends to itself to be mainly actuated by the statements of its own prospectus, however candid and sincere. Only a little more than an expedition to the South Pole could be based on an exact calculation of benefits to come. Thus, if the animal spirits are dimmed and the spontaneous optimism falters, leaving us to depend on nothing but a mathematical expectation, enterprise will fade and die” (Keynes, 1936, pp. 161–162). Similar was the position of Ackerlof and Schiller (2009).

Accordingly, transcendentalism is a philosophy (attributed to eighteenth century German philosophers Kant, Hegel and Fichte) that proposes to discover the nature of reality by investigating the process of thought rather than the objects of sense experience. By extension, Emerson and other nineteenth century New England philosophers, defined transcendentalism as a search for reality through spiritual intuition.

President’s Council on Bioethics (2008) provides a collection of essays on Human Dignity and Bioethics, commissioned in 2008, written by prominent modern representative conservatives and non-conservatives. The collection does not provide a single definition of human dignity as the term itself is abstract and highly ambiguous (Kass, 2008, p. 306). Fukuyama (2002, p. 148) maintains a similar position. Hence, authors propose different and often conflicting interpretations of human dignity. A working definition of human dignity is that of Lee and George (2008, p. 410), “The dignity of a person is that whereby a person excels other beings, especially other animals, and merits respect and considerations from other persons.” This definition bears the risk of being circular. Different definitions arise based on different definitions of the person, human excellence and respect, different understanding of human nature and of the foundations of human dignity (see Giubilini & Sanyal, 2016).

Book Chapters

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Life and Dignity of the Human Person

Genesis 1:26-31          God created man and woman in his image.      

Deuteronomy 10:17-19            God loves the orphan, the widow, and the stranger.        

Psalms 139:13-16              God formed each of us and knows us intimately.        

Proverbs 22:2            The Lord is the maker of both rich and poor.

Luke 10:25-37            The  good Samaritan recognized the dignity in the other and cared for his life.

John 4:1-42     Jesus  broke with societal and religious customs to honor the dignity of the Samaritan  woman.

Romans 12: 9-18            Love one another, contribute to the needs of others, live peaceably with all.

1 Corinthians 3:16            You are holy, for you are God’s temple and God dwells in you.

Galatians 3:27-28            All Christians are one in Christ Jesus.

James 2:1-8            Honor  the poor.

1 John 3: 1-2            See  what love the Father has for us, that we should be called Children of God.

1 John 4:7-12            Let us  love one another because love is from God.

Tradition  

“The world exists for everyone, because all of us were born with the same dignity. Differences of color, religion, talent, place of birth or residence, and so many others, cannot be used to justify the privileges of some over the rights of all. As a community, we have an obligation to ensure that every person lives with dignity and has sufficient opportunities for his or her integral development.” (Pope Francis, On Fraternity and Social Friendship  [ Fratelli Tutt i], no. 118) 

“The dignity of others is to be respected in all circumstances, not because that dignity is something we have invented or imagined, but because human beings possess an intrinsic worth superior to that of material objects and contingent situations. This requires that they be treated differently. That every human being possesses an inalienable dignity is a truth that corresponds to human nature apart from all cultural change. For this reason, human beings have the same inviolable dignity in every age of history and no one can consider himself or herself authorized by particular situations to deny this conviction or to act against it.” (Pope Francis, On Fraternity and Social Friendship [ Fratelli Tutt i], no. 213) 

“Our defense of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection. We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.” (Pope Francis, Rejoice and Be Glad [ Gaudete et Exsultate ], no. 101) 

“Human beings too are creatures of this world, enjoying a right to life and happiness, and endowed with unique dignity. So we cannot fail to consider the effects on people’s lives of environmental deterioration, current models of development and the throwaway culture.” (Pope Francis,  On Care for Our Common Home  [ Laudato Si' ], no. 43). 

"When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities – to offer just a few examples – it becomes difficult to hear the cry of nature itself; everything is connected." (Pope Francis, On Care for Our Common Home [ Laudato Si' ], no. 117) "Just as the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say 'thou shalt not' to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape. Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a 'throw away' culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society's underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the 'exploited' but the outcast, the 'leftovers'." (Pope Francis, The Joy of the Gospel [ Evangelii Gaudium ], no. 53)

"The dignity  of the individual and the demands of justice require, particularly today, that  economic choices do not cause disparities in wealth to increase in an excessive  and morally unacceptable manner." (Pope Benedict XVI, Charity  in Truth [ Caritas in Veritate ], no. 32)

Human persons are  willed by God; they are imprinted with God's image. Their dignity does not come  from the work they do, but from the persons they are. (See St. John Paul II, On the Hundredth Year [ Centesimus annus] , no. 11)

"The  basis for all that the Church believes about the moral dimensions of economic  life is its vision of the transcendent worth -- the sacredness -- of human  beings. The dignity of the human person, realized in community with others, is  the criterion against which all aspects of economic life must be measured.

All  human beings, therefore, are ends to be served by the institutions that make up  the economy, not means to be exploited for more narrowly defined goals. Human personhood must be respected with a reverence that is religious. When we deal  with each other, we should do so with the sense of awe that arises in the  presence of something holy and sacred. For that is what human beings are: we  are created in the image of God ( Gn 1:27 )." (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Economic Justice for All , no. 28)

"Every individual, precisely by reason of the mystery of  the Word of God who was made flesh (cf. Jn 1:14 ), is entrusted  to the maternal care of the Church. Therefore every threat to human dignity and  life must necessarily be felt in the Church's very heart; it cannot but affect  her at the core of her faith in the Redemptive Incarnation of the Son of God,  and engage her in her mission of proclaiming the Gospel of life in all the  world and to every creature (cf. Mk 16:15 )." (St. John Paul II, The  Gospel of Life [ Evangelium vitae ] , no. 3)

"As explicitly formulated, the precept 'You shall not kill' is strongly negative: it indicates the extreme limit which can never be  exceeded. Implicitly, however, it encourages a positive attitude of absolute  respect for life; it leads to the promotion of life and to progress along the  way of a love which gives, receives and serves." (St. John Paul II, The Gospel of Life [ Evangelium vitae ], no. 54)

"This teaching rests on one basic principle: individual human beings are the foundation, the cause and the end of every  social institution. That is necessarily so, for men are by nature social beings." (St. John XXIII, Mother and Teacher [ Mater et Magistra ] , no. 219)

"There exist also sinful inequalities that affect millions  of men and women. These are in open contradiction of the Gospel: 'Their equal  dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane  conditions. Excessive economic and social disparity between individuals and  peoples of the one human race is a source of scandal and militates against  social justice, equity, human dignity, as well as social and international  peace'." ( Catechism of the Catholic Church , no. 1938 citing Gaudium et Spes, 29)

"Whatever  insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary  imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and  children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are  infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who  practice them than those who suffer from the injury." (Second Vatican Council, The Church in the Modern World [ Gaudium et Spes ], no. 27)

• Five Pillars , Human Dignity , Public Discourse

Respect for the Dignity of Every Human Person: The First Pillar of a Decent Society

• October 16, 2018

For the past ten years, Public Discourse has been a consistent, unwavering advocate for the dignity of every human person. Throughout this essay, you’ll find hyperlinks to essays we have published on various topics related to human dignity over the past ten years. As these essays demonstrate, our editorial vision is built upon the truth that dignity is not determined by talent or ability, by size or state of development.

People matter even if they are not wanted, including the poor and marginalized, the elderly, the disabled, and unborn children. The answer to the question “who counts?” is “everyone.”

Beginning-of-Life Issues

Human dignity begins when human life begins, with the fusion of an egg and sperm in fertilization to create a new human being. Debates about human dignity begin with whether embryonic and fetal life is worthy of the same protections as more mature human life.

Start your day with Public Discourse

In Public Discourse’s early years, this was manifest in arguments over stem-cell research . George W. Bush’s compromise position neither prohibited nor promoted embryo-destructive research. Barack Obama changed this course, funding and advocating such research, even as alternative sources of human of stem cells continued to develop. But it’s not only embryos, children at the very earliest stages of development, whose bodies have been used for research. At the end of the Obama presidency, the Center for Medical Progress challenged the profit that organizations such as Planned Parenthood make from the sale of fetal parts for research. These revelations led to nationwide calls for Congress to defund the organization. The debate has continued into the Trump administration, whose Department of Health and Human Services recently announced that it will review all medical research involving fetal tissue.

American ethical debates depend primarily on empathy with others and preventing them from suffering harm. The more an embryo or fetus appears recognizably human and the more it is shown to suffer harm, the more likely we are to recognize it as human and prevent such harm. This explains why a woman casually discussing the sale of fetal limbs and organs would provoke more outrage than the quiet destruction of embryonic humans.

In the past decade, improvements in ultrasound technology have made the humanity of life in the womb more obvious and worthier of our empathy. The horrors of Kermit Gosnell exposed the lurid side of abortion clinics and the dangers abortion poses to women. Abortion rates have reached their lowest point since Roe v. Wade . Even pro-choice authors note the consequences of sex-selective abortion , which has led to a conspicuous dearth of girls in societies where women are less valued than men, especially under China’s one-child policy. And the rise of groups like the New Wave Feminists have led many to note that the pro-life movement is getting younger and more female—exactly the opposite of what its critics expected. The more the harms of abortion become visible, the more a consensus grows against unrestricted abortion, especially later in pregnancy.

Abortion and stem-cell research concern unwanted human life, but the desires for particular human life and particular medical treatments also drive contemporary concerns about human dignity. Popular infertility treatments involve the creation of many embryos for the sake of a desired child, leaving the embryos not chosen destroyed or in a frozen limbo. In the coming years, we are likely to see more attempts to use genetic modification to design children according to parents’ desires, not to mention new techniques for human cloning , with little pause for reflection on their ethics. The harms of the fertility industry are becoming more evident in other ways, too. Children conceived by anonymous reproductive donors have begun to speak out against the disconnect they feel from their biological parents. Others argue that third-party reproduction violates the rights of children to have a connection with their biological parents. Still more across the ideological spectrum have begun to expose the violence to women and children endemic in the surrogacy industry .

Euthanasia, Parental Rights, and the Role of Conscience in Healthcare

The injustices of the fertility industry point to deeper questions for medicine and bioethics that will only become more important in the coming years. Is medicine a service provided to consumers who have an unquestioned right to have their desires met, or is it an art aimed at the good of the health of the person?

This is a vital question in the debate over assisted suicide, which we can expect to see become more prevalent. That debate also asks whether human dignity depends on capacity and feelings. Can one be disabled and have dignity, or in pain and have dignity? European nations such as Belgium show how restrictions on assisted suicide loosen over time, or are simply not followed. This August, for instance, two children became the world’s youngest to be euthanized, at ages nine and eleven. Euthanasia endangers the disabled, those with mental illness, and other vulnerable members of society whose lives are deemed less worth living. It attacks the heart of the medical profession , which is the health and human flourishing of patients. In the coming years, we should expect advocates to press for its legalization in more states , and for its social consequences to become more evident where it has been adopted.

In a related vein, another trend to watch is the refusal of hospitals, backed by states, to provide treatment for patients over the objections of their caregivers. Notable examples include the cases of Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard in the UK. In light of this, scholars like Melissa Moschella have begun to advocate for rights of parental authority over children that the state must respect , since parents by nature have the responsibility of caring for their children.

We also see the converse happening when states demand that healthcare providers offer treatments that they cannot in good conscience perform. Many claim that medical providers’ conscientious objection should have no role to play in their willingness to perform medical procedures. They argue that doctors who refuse to perform surgeries or prescribe treatments that they deem unethical or ineffective should be forced to comply with a patient’s wishes. This began with objections to abortion and has become more prevalent in cases of sex-reassignment surgeries and hormonal therapies for teenagers and adults experiencing gender dysphoria. Here at Public Discourse , scholars have argued that a pluralistic society should seek alternative routes to public goods that do not violate conscientious beliefs, and that legislation is required to ensure that rights of conscience are not violated.

Religion and Public Life

Conscience protections have become contested in matters of religious liberty as well. We used to see more debate over the freedoms of religion and conscience in terms of statues of the Ten Commandments, prayers in civic settings, and what religious liberty looked like at the time of the Founding. Recent court cases over the HHS contraception mandate and Jack Phillips’s refusal to bake a same-sex wedding cake are a taste of conscience-protection and religious-liberty debates in the years to come.

The clash between dignitary harms and religious rights will become more intense as the “nones” continue to rise and religious convictions become less intelligible as deep-seated beliefs that must be respected. Yet religious convictions shape our understanding of who we are, the purpose and destiny of our lives, and how we ought to treat those around us. They guide our pursuit of the truth and our adherence to it when we find it. The freedom of religion and the freedom of conscience are therefore fundamental to the dignity of the human person.

Though not a confessional journal, Public Discourse has published a variety of thoughtful and important religious arguments, and we will continue to do so in the years to come. Two topics in this vein particularly stand out. The first is the nature of Islam, the place of Muslims in liberal western societies, and the place of Jews and other religious minorities in societies that are increasingly Islamic. Can we have an Islam that is respectful of rights and friendly to Jews and Christians, yet not eroded by cultural assimilation and progressive politics? How can other religious believers clarify misperceptions about Islam in their own communities and work together with Muslims toward common goals ? Second, should religious believers, especially Catholics, work toward confessional states ? Or should they support liberal regimes? As arguments about the benefits and viability of liberal society are likely to continue, as will arguments for and against integralism.

This makes the work we do at Public Discourse all the more vital. As our public debate coarsens and weakens, we will continue to publish respectful, rigorous arguments. We will continue to stand up for the rights and dignity of the most vulnerable members of society. We will continue to fight for the freedom of conscience and the freedom of religion, and to host debates on the place of religion in contemporary society. We hope you join us for them in the years ahead.

Related Posts

“LGBT rights” are being elevated above conscience rights when the two come into conflict—but this…

It is time for the international community to respond to the plight of Christians in…

Waging war against those who cannot in good conscience help perform or facilitate abortions does…

Latest Articles

Hannah’s Children : An Interview with the Author

The Kids Are Not All Right: A Review of Jonathan Haidt’s The Anxious Generation

A Review of True Confessions: Voices of Faith from a Life in the Church , by Francis X. Maier

It’s Time to Regulate IVF

How to Marry Your Best Friend

The Bookshelf: Eros and Dystopia

• Privacy Policy

© 2024 The Public Discourse

Privacy Overview

Subscribe to public discourse.

• Daily Emails
• Weekly Emails
• First Name *
• Last Name *

Why Human Dignity is Important

What is Dignity?

Dignity is the quality of being honourable, noble, excellent or worthy. With a human regarded as the most supreme living creature, dignity, in its appealing sense, is better referred to as human dignity. It is the conceptual basis for the formulation and execution of human rights and is neither granted by the society nor can it be legitimately granted by the society. An imperative implication of human dignity is that every human being should be regarded as a very invaluable member of the community with a uniquely free expression of their right to life, integrated bodily attributes and their spiritual nature (Chapman, Audrey R, 2010).

Human dignity is a sense of self-worth. Therefore, dignity is a sense of pride in oneself that a human being has with them. This conscious sense makes them feel that they deserve respect and honour from other human beings. Many scholars argue that if a human being is in a humiliating or compromising situation then this is a major threat to their dignity. However, other human persons may still assert that they have dignity even though they find themselves in such situations. All in all, humans deserve dignity not because of their lifelong achievements but by the fact they are already human beings (TerMeulen Ruud, 2010).

Three Perspectives of Human Dignity

The question of human dignity has hit the headlines world over in the recent past. The pre-colonial period has been used as the base reference for crimes against humanity and abuse of human dignity, thence redefinition of the term human dignity by international law courts and the United Nations. Human dignity has been defined from the philosophical, religious and legalistic perspectives.

The deep philosophical roots of the term human dignity were articulated by Emmanuel Kant, a great philosopher of the famous late Enlightenment. He is considered as the source of the now contemporary concept of human dignity. He holds that the fundamental principle behind moral duties of human beings is a categorical imperative. According to Kant, imperative means that it commands us to exercise our wills in a particular way. As a result, human beings with respect for human dignity should not possess any irrational wills against their fellow human beings and the generally acceptable societal norms and values.

And according to Emmanuel Kant, the only thing we should will about is our happiness as human beings. Once we have happiness we’ll be able to enjoy good health and nourish proper relationships (Sensen Oliver, 2011). Human dignity should operate on the basis of volitional principles or maxims. Hence, the basic rational requirements and morality should be the primary demands that apply to these maxims which motivate all our actions.

Human dignity has also been developed along the lines of religious, theological and ethical perspectives. Christian and Islam views make up this perspective at large. According to the Christians, the Bible reveals that God not only created the human nature but also endowed man with unique qualities after creating man in His own image and likeness (Genesis 1:26). It is from this basis that we can deduce that the human nature deserves a very inherent dignity.

According to the Russian Orthodox Church’s basic teaching on the issue of human dignity, God has endowed all human beings in a very generous manner by distributing His gifts equally such that His showing of human dignity, nature and abundance of His unending grace remains undisputable. Owing to the fact that Jesus Christ offered His life as a ransom for sin and the sinful nature of human beings, human dignity was lifted at its best, hence it should be respected. The Bible also asserts that life according to the desires of the flesh that don’t withstand respect for other human beings is loss of and abuse of human dignity.

The Islam Texts Society puts forth the idea that human dignity is the basis of human rights. Several references are drawn from the Holy Quran which indicates that a human being deserves dignity as a result of their physical and spiritual nobility. The Quran says that God’s love for humanity is immense, the sanctity for human life immeasurable, the necessity for freedom a prerequisite thus restating the need for human equality and accountability for all acts done to humanity (Kamali, H, M, 1999) .

For this reason, Sharia Laws have been developed to help in protecting human dignity and also promote a high level of social interaction. Since God has honoured mankind by His great love, human beings should also reciprocate the same and show their love and respect for their fellow human beings. In other words, dignity is not earned by the meritorious conduct which is an expression of the favour and grace of God towards human beings.

The legal perspective of the concept of human dignity was coined at the end of the Second World War. It has been regarded as the central perspective that discourses human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that all humans have been born with equality in dignity and rights. For this reason, they are endowed with enough reason and pure conscience, hence should acts towards one another with a deep spirit of brotherhood. In its preamble, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights seeks for recognition and respect for the inherent dignity as well as the equal and inalienable rights of every member of the human dignity despite where they come from, their religious beliefs or background history.

Drafters of this perspective add that the human person possesses many rights because of the fact they have been born as a person, wholly, a master and manager of oneself in many aspects (Frame Tom, 2007). Therefore, all human beings deserve to be treated with utmost dignity. International Law, in pointing out the contempt of and disregard for human dignity says that abuse of human rights has resulted in numerous barbarous acts that have completely outraged the pure conscience of mankind. Digging deep the question of human dignity has led to the coining of and questions in aspects of human liberty, equality and fraternity because many people died and suffered in the hands of their fellow human beings during the war.

Case Analysis of Human Dignity

In March 28, 2010, Conor McBride brutally murdered his fiancée before turning himself to police. As a result, nobody sought a death penalty. Several issues emanate from his ordeal: justice and several elements of justice, deterrence and forgiveness. However, of concern to us now is the question of human dignity by the murderer.

The death penalty for all crimes has been abolished in Australia. The major question that arises is whether we should use justice to arrive at human dignity and justice. Is punishment a means to attaining justice? First of all, McBride hasn’t respected the dignity of his fiancée by killing her. Nonetheless, killing him would be a disregard for his dignity as well.

Several arguments arise from the death penalty for someone who has shown contempt to human dignity. The most obvious one is the fact that a murderer loses their dignity by performing this act. Therefore, they also deserve to lose it in the same manner. The other argument says that by killing another person, a murder can only retain their human dignity by being put to death as well. The last argument says that a murder’s human dignity should be respected hence they shouldn’t be put to death (Perry, Michael J, 2005).

In the case of Oscar Pistorius who participated in the 2012 Olympic Games, a powerful thought and question on human dignity has been put forward. He became the first man with a disability to participate in the able-bodied competition. He was amputated on both legs at birth. This raised tough questions as to whether he should participate in the able-bodied Olympics or in the Paralympics for those with disabilities. He insisted that he wanted to participate in the normal-bodied Olympics. However, others argued that he had an undue advantage because he runs on blades.

Later on, a question as to whether technological advancements should be allowed to take toll in the issue of human dignity arose. This is clear because without the blades, Oscar Pistorius couldn’t have participated in the able-bodied Olympics. The arguments put forward in three perspectives say that human dignity actually places limits on the enhancements of individuals. Others say that it encourages human dignity while the last group argues that those who dispute that enhancements actually threaten human dignity are those who cannot benefit from such enhancements (Kurt Bayertz, Human Dignity, 1996).

In April 1986, an unidentified university lecturer from Belfast was practically seized by some Muslim gunmen in Beirut, Lebanon. After about 5 years, Brian Keenan was a free man once again. He had survived a painful incarceration, chained to some walls of a very tiny cell. To add insult to injury, he’s a blinded musician.

Everybody thought he was actually dead but after being released, he wished to travel the whole world, eat all the food in the world and make love possibly with all the women in the world as he had said. Silently, he began recording his ordeal on tape in an attempt to make sense of his life.

This ideally meant that his dignity had been abused and he never felt as though a human being. It deeply reminded him of the ancient times of slave trade when human beings haggled the price of their fellow human beings in attempt to claim supremacy and gain access to mighty riches. As a learned man, Keenan had been taken hostage to and work as a prisoner for the Jihad in Patagonia, Chile.

Brian was captured at Belfast as a man with full vision but after about five years, he came back blind. Why did this happen? Well, he was blinded by an attack of smallpox. He actually felt that he was better dead than alive at that time. This perhaps is the greatest disregard for human dignity when people you are offering services involuntarily and free of charge can’t even treat you so that you live as a human being just like them.

Brian Keenan, in an interview with The Guardian, a British newspaper, says that he wasn’t prepared for such an endeavour. He wasn’t a musician or historian but he found himself buried in those works of art. To this day, he can’t tell how he started playing the harp yet he wasn’t a musician. That’s why he said that when one ends up spending a lot of time in some small dark place, some strange people and ideas end up visiting you. He attributes all these as an attempt to recover one’s lost dignity. Anderson Duff Attorney

As a university lecturer before his capture, Brian Keenan could actually exercise his freedom of speech and movement and even do whatever he wanted but this didn’t turn out the same when he was captured. When he was a free man, Keenan never highly regarded those who visited him. However, he found himself being very grateful to those who visited him in what he describes as a cell without a wall. This he attributes to the fact that he was surrounded by conditions beyond his wish, conditions that he didn’t perceive to be good.

It is clear from various case studies that the question of human dignity brings out a lot of questions in the areas of justice and equality in the society. It affects societal norms and generally accepted principles. For instance, no society allows a human being to kill a fellow human being.

Critically looking at all the three perspectives from whence the issue of human dignity arises, it is important to look at all of them because without one perspective, several factors surrounding human dignity cannot be properly articulated. Therefore, all the three perspectives should be used depending on the situation bringing the issue of human dignity to question.

Chapman, Audrey R, Inconsistency of Human Rights Approaches ot Human Dignity with Transhumanism, The American Journal of Bioethics 10, no. 7 (2010): 61 – 63.

TerMeulen, Ruud, Dignity, Posthumanism, and the Community of Values, The American Journal of Bioethics 10, no. 7 (2010): 69 – 70

Frame, Tom 2007, The Legacy of Ronald Ryan’s Last Day, Quadrant  Magazine51, nos. 1-2 (2007): 53-60.

Kamali, H, M 1999, The Dignity of Man: An Islamic Perspective, 2nd edn, Ismalic Texts Society

Perry, Michael J, Capital Punishment and the Morality of Human Rights, Journal of Catholic Legal Studies 44 (2005): 1–36.

Anderson Duff Lawyer | Attorney

Anderson Duff Lawyer Crime

Sensen, Oliver 2011, Human Dignity in Historical Perspective: The Contemporary and Traditional Paradigms, European Journal of Political Theory, 10:1, 71-91.

Kurt Bayertz, Human Dignity: Philosophical Origin and Scientific Erosion of an Idea, (Sanctity of Life and Human Dignity, ed. Kurt Bayertz [Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1996], 73-90)

Mary Ann Glendon, The Bearable Lightness of Dignity, (First Things, May 2011, 41-45)

INSTANT PRICE

Get an instant price. no signup required.

We respect your privacy and confidentiality!

Share the excitement and get a 15% discount

Introduce your friends to The Uni Tutor and get rewarded when they order!

Refer Now >

FREE Resources

• APA Citation Generator
• Harvard Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• MLA Referencing Generator
• Oscola Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• Turabian Citation Generator

New to this Site? Download these Sample Essays

• Corporate Law Thesis
• Political Philosophy
• Legal Writing Rules
• Sample Philosophy Thesis

Send me free samples >

How The Order Process Works

• Order Your Work Online
• Tell us your specific requirements
• Pay for your order
• An expert will write your work
• You log in and download your work
• Order Complete

Amazing Offers from The Uni Tutor Sign up to our daily deals and don't miss out!

Contact Us At

• e-mail: info@theunitutor.com
• tel: +44 20 3286 9122

Brought to you by SiteJabber

• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2002-2024 - The Uni Tutor - Custom Essays. 10347001, info@theunitutor.com, +44 20 3286 9122 , All Rights Reserved. - Terms and Conditions   |   Privacy Policy

The Uni Tutor : We are a company registered in the United Kingdom. Registered Address London, UK , London , England , EC2N 1HQ

Assignment: The Dignity of the Human Person

Under catholic teachings, every human being is created in the likeness of God. This is the bedrock that makes human beings creatures that are dignified since every person is a reflection of God’s image. Every person is entitled to be treated in a manner that upholds human dignity. Just as rights and freedoms are upheld and respected, so should human dignity be upheld. Human dignity is all we are when everything around us is taken away since you cannot remove human dignity from a person. Every human being has human dignity regardless of being saints, evildoers, or even those in prison. This helps carve out a moral society where people treat each other with respect. Since we are all human, people should uphold human dignity by treating their fellow man as they would want to be treated (Sison et al., 2016).

The dignity of the human person is based on the fact that man is created in God’s image. This, in turn, translates that whenever we see another human being, we are looking at God’s likeness. Apart from good nature, man was also bestowed free will making human beings able to discern between good and evil. Being human sets us apart from other creatures since human life is sacred and demands respect and to be nurtured. Every person has just one life, and consequently, we are all equal in terms of the primary fundamental dignity. No one is above their fellow man since we draw life from the same source regardless of the material possessions anyone may own. If a person demeans human dignity, they also demean their own human dignity. Demeaning human dignity is a slippery slope for morality, resulting in escalated cases of violence since our humanity is lost.

The dignity of the human person is central to catholic social teachings because the scriptures command people to show love and compassion for their fellow man (McKinney, 2019). According to the scriptures, there are ten commandments that form the basis of the covenant between man and God. The first four commandments emphasize how to honor God. The other six commandments show ways how we should treat our fellow man. Among the commandments on how to treat the fellow man is against taking the life of another. This is among the themes of the catholic social teachings, which emphasize that life is sacred and nobody should take another man’s life. This theme is critical in the definition of morality within society. The ten commandments lay a foundation for the Christian religion, which is why the catholic social teachings emphasize preserving the dignity of the human person.

Another theme of the catholic social teachings that is closely related to the theme of the dignity of the human person is the dignity of work and the rights of workers (Sison et al., 2016). Even the scriptures value work and see it as a way for people to contribute to God’s creation. At the same time, the scriptures condemn laziness and paint it as immoral. We should uphold the dignity of work to the highest level by ensuring workers’ rights are observed. The dignity of work is observed by ensuring a conducive working environment for workers, decent wages, and appraisal of workers’ achievements. I chose this theme because it presents many religious and moral similarities to uphold human dignity.

As a nurse, it is critical to learn about the dignity of the human person because it helps provide better care to the patients and helps the nurses be aware of their personal dignity. This improves the care to the patients without compromising the human dignity of the nurses. Learning about the human person’s dignity helps the nurses uphold professionalism in the workplace by meeting competency standards and treating the patients with the most respect. The difference made by learning about human dignity is seen in better service provision to patients, and an improved working environment is enhanced for the nurses.

McKinney, S. J. (2019). Catholic social teaching, Catholic education, and religious education. In  Global perspectives on Catholic religious education in schools  (pp. 393-403). Springer, Singapore.

Sison, A. J. G., Ferrero, I., & Guitián, G. (2016). Human dignity and the dignity of work: Insights from Catholic social teaching.  Business Ethics Quarterly ,  26 (4), 503-528.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Related Essays

Old egyptian maatian morals and communication., essay on parasite, the indian removal, enough food to feed the starving kids on earth vs. a team of superheroes to save the world, the impact of chinggis khan’s conquests on eurasia: exploring mongol influence and transformations in affected regions”, historical analysis of edgar allen poe’s “the tell tale heart”, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Books Bound in Human Skin: An Ethical Quandary at the Library

Harvard’s recent decision to remove the binding of a notorious volume in its library has thrown fresh light on a shadowy corner of the rare book world.

By Jennifer Schuessler and Julia Jacobs

The New York International Antiquarian Book Fair is the place to inspect some of the most exquisite rare books on the market. But at this year’s event in early April, some browsers may have been unprepared for a small, grayish item on view: a book bound in human skin.

The book, which measures about 3 by 5 inches, came with a price tag of $45,000 — and a colorful back story. According to a statement by its owner, the binding was commissioned in 1682 by an Italian doctor and anatomist identified as Jacopo X, and has been kept by his descendants ever since.

Family lore held that during a dissection, Jacopo recognized the woman on the slab as an actress he had seen in Corneille’s comedy “Le Baron d’Albikrac.” He knew that unclaimed bodies sold to medical schools for dissection were rarely, if ever, given a proper burial. So he removed a piece of skin, and used it to bind a copy of the play.

“There was a sense that this was a tribute,” Ian Kahn, a dealer, explained to onlookers gathered at the counter of his booth before pulling out the book to offer a closer look.

Books bound in human skin — and the sometimes sensational stories surrounding them — have long occupied an odd place in the annals of the rare book world. Over the years, they have been whispered, bragged and joked about.

But over the past decade, the conversation has shifted. Many institutions whose collections include these books have sharply restricted access, as they have found themselves unexpectedly embroiled in the same debates about displaying — or even owning — human remains that have swept across museums .

The conversation was jolted anew last month when Harvard University announced that it had removed the skin binding from a notorious book in its collections, and that it would be seeking “a final, respectful disposition.” The university also apologized for “past failures in its stewardship,” which it said had “further objectified and compromised the dignity of the human being whose remains were used” for the binding.

The announcement drew headlines around the world. But so far, the reaction from rare book experts has been muted — and mixed.

“It was a bold move to put out a press release not just about the presence of human skin books, but about a potentially controversial way of dealing with the issue,” said Allie Alvis, a curator at the Winterthur Museum, Garden & Library in Delaware. Too many institutions, Alvis says, are unwilling to say much about them at all.

But others are troubled by what they see as the destruction of a historical artifact, and the imposition of 21st-century sensibilities onto objects from different times and contexts.

Megan Rosenbloom, a former medical librarian and the author of “Dark Archives,” a study of the history and science of anthropodermic (or skin-bound) books, said that destroying or disposing of these objects would close off future scholarship and fresh understandings.

“We should treat these books as respectfully as possible, but try not to bury literally and figuratively what happened to these people,” she said. “It’s hubris to think we’ve come to the end of our evolution of how we think about human remains.”

And moves like Harvard’s, Rosenbloom added, could backfire.

“If all anthropodermic books are taken out of institutions,” she said, “the rest of these books on the private market will probably go further underground, where they might be treated less respectfully.”

Rumors and Innuendo

Claims of books bound in human skin have circulated for centuries. But the ability to confirm them scientifically — using a technique called peptide mass fingerprinting — is only about a decade old.

In 2015, Rosenbloom and others started the Anthropodermic Book Project , with the goal of uncovering “the historical truths behind the innuendo.” So far, the project has identified 51 purported examples worldwide, 18 of which have been confirmed as bound in human skin. Another 14 have been debunked.

An unknown number of others sit in private libraries. Kahn, whose firm, Lux Mentis , handles a lot of “challenging material,” as he put it, said he knows of several collectors in Paris who have skin-bound books.

The oldest reputed examples are three 13th-century Bibles held at the Bibliothèque Nationale in France. The largest number date from the Victorian era, the heyday of anatomical collecting , when doctors sometimes had medical treatises and other texts bound in skin from patients or cadavers.

Other examples relate to criminals or prisoners. At the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh in Scotland, a display about the 19th-century growth of the medical profession includes a small notebook purportedly bound in the skin of William Burke, part of a duo of notorious serial killers who sold their victims’ bodies for dissection. The Boston Athenaeum owns one bound in the skin of a man who, before he died in prison , had asked that two copies of his memoir and deathbed confession be bound in his skin.

While most known skin bindings are from Europe or North America, some involve wild claims, like a book at the Newberry Library in Chicago said to have been “found in the palace of the King of Delhi” during the 1857 mutiny against British rule. (Lab examination, according to the library, concluded it was actually “highly burnished goat.” )

“There’s often a sense of othering of these books,” said Alvis, the curator of Winterthur Museum, who posts about rare books on social media as @book_historia. “They don’t come from the noble white person, but this strange person from foreign climes.”

Current testing cannot identify race or sex of the skin. But at least a half-dozen 19th-century examples involve skin purportedly taken from female patients or cadavers by male doctors, with several used to cover books about female biology or sexuality (like a treatise on virginity held at the Wellcome Collection in London).

And a few examples, both rumored and confirmed, have racial connections that, whatever the intentions behind the bindings, may play uncomfortably today.

Two volumes of poems by Phillis Wheatley , the first person of African descent to publish a book in the United States, have been confirmed as bound in human skin. But a pocket-size notebook at the Wellcome Collection, long claimed to have been bound in the skin of Crispus Attucks, a mixed-race Black and Native man recognized as the first person to die for American independence, is likely bound in camel, horse or goat skin, according to the museum.

A ‘Violated Woman’?

The volume at Harvard, an 1879 philosophical treatise called “Des Destinées de L’Ame,” or “The Destiny of Souls,” was bound by a French doctor named Ludovic Bouland, who inserted a note saying that “a book about the human soul deserved to have a human covering.” It was placed at Harvard’s Houghton Library in 1934 by John Stetson, an heir to the hat fortune, along with another note saying that the skin came from a woman who died in a psychiatric hospital.

According to Harvard, library lore holds that “decades ago” the book was sometimes used to haze unsuspecting student workers. But questions about the library’s recent stewardship emerged in 2014, after the library published a jokey blog post describing the confirmation of the skin binding as “good news for cannibals.”

Paul Needham, a prominent rare book expert who retired from Princeton in 2020, was deeply offended, and began calling on Harvard to remove the skin and give it a “respectful burial.”

“I think that the way the Houghton Library treated this was a disservice to the world of rare book collecting,” he said.

The library imposed some restrictions on access in 2015. Winds shifted further in 2021, when Harvard formed a Steering Committee on Human Remains to examine all of its collections, as an outgrowth of its efforts to reckon with its historic entanglements with slavery.

A single skin-bound book from 19th-century France may seem like a small thing amid the more than 20,000 human remains in Harvard’s collections, including 6,500 from Native Americans, which critics say are not being researched and repatriated quickly enough.

But to Needham, who was involved in starting an affinity group to pressure Harvard into burying the skin of what the group called “the violated woman trapped in the binding,” the moral imperative is clear: The proper disposition of human remains should take ethical precedence, particularly where the person has not given consent.

“What 100 years from now would be the potential new research that would be done?” Needham said. “I just can’t imagine it.”

Harvard’s decision is drawing heightened attention to skin-bound volumes elsewhere, including one at the Cleveland Public Library: an 1867 edition of the Quran, acquired in 1941 from a dealer who had described it as “formerly the property of the East Arab chief Bushiri ibn Salim who revolted against the Germans in 1888.”

For decades, the book typically received a handful of requests a year for access, said John Skrtic, the library’s chief of collections. But earlier this year, the library made it off-limits, pending testing.

“The library has long believed the undocumented claim in the dealer’s catalog, regarding its binding, to be false and finds the claim sensationalistic and deeply offensive,” the Cleveland Public Library said in a statement. The library will “engage leaders in the local Muslim community to chart an ethical path forward.”

Harvard’s approach is also generating strong criticism. Eric Holzenberg, a book scholar who recently retired as director of the Grolier Club in Manhattan, said that the destruction of the binding “accomplishes nothing,” beyond expressing disapproval of “the acts of people long dead.”

“Harvard, it seems to me, has taken the easy way out,” Holzenberg said. “No doubt the proper, cautious, committee-generated, risk-averse approach, but ultimately I fear at the expense of sound scholarship and responsible stewardship.”

Rosenbloom, the author of “Dark Archives,” said she questioned the tendency to pull these objects, which were generally not created or collected in a context of colonialism, into models developed to address those injustices. And she wondered why Harvard had removed the binding before finishing full provenance research.

In response to emailed questions, Thomas Hyry, the director of Houghton Library, and Anne-Marie Eze, its associate librarian, said they did not believe dismantling of the binding would limit future scholarship.

“The decisions we have made to remove the human remains from our volume will not erase what we know about this practice for those studying the history of the book,” they said.

Balancing Research and Respect

Some libraries that have undertaken an ethical review of their anthropodermic books have reached different conclusions.

Brown University’s John Hay Library has four books confirmed as bound in human skin, including an edition of Vesalius’s landmark 1543 anatomical atlas, “On the Structure of the Human Body.” In the past, they were promoted on campus tours and sometimes brought out for Halloween and other events.

But in 2019, the library’s new director, Amanda Strauss, paused any showing of the books, while developing policies that balanced respect for human remains with the library’s research mandate.

“We don’t want to censor access to controversial or disturbing material,” she said. “And we don’t want to shame anyone for their interest.”

Today, images of the books’ pages (but not the bindings) are available online , while access to the physical books is limited to people conducting research on medical ethics or anthropodermic bindings.

Strauss said she would be uncomfortable with any alteration or destruction of the bindings, which she said amounted to “erasure.”

“We can’t pretend this wasn’t a practice and this didn’t happen,” she said. “Because it did, and we have the evidence.”

With any macabre object, the line between morbid curiosity and the pursuit of understanding may be hard to draw.

Kahn, the dealer, said he wanted to “demystify” books bound in skin, which he said can prompt conversations about ethics, knowledge and our own status as animals. At the book fair, many seemed open to those questions and curious, however queasily, to touch the Corneille volume.

One browser, Helen Lukievics, a retired lawyer, said she had read about the Harvard book and shuddered. But she was persuaded, she said, by the idea that this particular binding had been meant as a “tribute” to the actress.

“It’s fabulously appalling,” she said. She paused. “It’s a piece of history.”

Jennifer Schuessler is a culture reporter covering intellectual life and the world of ideas. She is based in New York. More about Jennifer Schuessler

Julia Jacobs is an arts and culture reporter who often covers legal issues for The Times. More about Julia Jacobs

• Saturday, April 27, 2024

© 2023 - Businessday NG. All Rights Reserved.