A philosophical basis for inherent universal human dignity

[Theophorus]

Naturally as a Catholic I see my creation by God as a human being as the basis for my human dignity, my rights, and so for justice which is objective and which transcends man made law.

but to play advocatus diaboli I ask:

Without direct reference to God, that is to say on philosophical grounds, Is there something we can base such universal human rights on?

Or Would we say they are universal merely by convention and only by virtue of human law?

Or is there some fundamental attribute of humanity on which we can base human rights without reference to a legislator or to God?

I know where I stand but I am interested to hear the views of others

 

[brgregmack]

I don’t think there is any argument solely from philosophy. However, you can use philosophy to get to God and thus universal human dignity.

For example, we could go into the question for the basis of right and wrong being conscience and/or societal norms. With them as the only basis, then you would have to justify Nazi Germany and ancient Aztec human sacrifice in order to be logically consistent, and therefore no universal human dignity.

You could broaden it to history and the entire world population, thus including every outcry against human degradation, but that still leaves the question of the underlying reasons for said opposition. To remain honest, it would have to be admitted by far the most opposition and improvements against human degradation has come from those who hold Judeo-Christian values, and thus believe in God.

There’s no way around it.

 

[tonyrey]

The only rational basis for inherent universal human dignity is that we are all children of the same Father. If we are not intended to exist and just happen to co-exist by an accident of birth there is no valid reason to believe in the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity or in love, goodness, justice, freedom or dignity.

 

[JDaniel]

Naturally as a Catholic I see my creation by God as a human being as the basis for my human dignity, my rights, and so for justice which is objective and which transcends man made law.

but to play advocatus diaboli I ask:

Without direct reference to God, that is to say on philosophical grounds, Is there something we can base such universal human rights on?

Theo:

I think so: Certainly we have “rights” because we are creatures of God. But, we don’t osmotically possess “rights” until and unless they are specifically reciprocated. The impetus for such reciprocity is part of the Natural Law, which is something written on our hearts by virtue of our inclusion in community. Though they may be unstated, you have rights precisely because I accord them to you and you, in turn, accord the same to me. I hope I sad that sufficiently well enough to be understandable.

God bless,
jd

 

[grannymh]

Naturally as a Catholic I see my creation by God as a human being as the basis for my human dignity, my rights, and so for justice which is objective and which transcends man made law.

but to play advocatus diaboli I ask:

Without direct reference to God, that is to say on philosophical grounds, Is there something we can base such universal human rights on?

Or Would we say they are universal merely by convention and only by virtue of human law?

Or is there some fundamental attribute of humanity on which we can base human rights without reference to a legislator or to God?

I know where I stand but I am interested to hear the views of others

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

is an universal truth which both theists and non-theists can agree with.

 

[brgregmack]

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

is an universal truth which both theists and non-theists can agree with.

That statement is a conclusion that begs the question of why. There needs to be a reason.

 

[grannymh]

That statement is a conclusion that begs the question of why. There needs to be a reason.

The human person is worthy of profound respect is an objective fact in that it exists independently. Of course, there are many, many reasons why this is true about the human person. The many, many, reasons are why both theists and non-theists can recognize the truth of the statement. Theists and non-theists are not restricted to using the same reason.

 

[Theophorus]

I don’t think there is any argument solely from philosophy. However, you can use philosophy to get to God and thus universal human dignity.

For example, we could go into the question for the basis of right and wrong being conscience and/or societal norms. With them as the only basis, then you would have to justify Nazi Germany and ancient Aztec human sacrifice in order to be logically consistent, and therefore no universal human dignity.

You could broaden it to history and the entire world population, thus including every outcry against human degradation, but that still leaves the question of the underlying reasons for said opposition. To remain honest, it would have to be admitted by far the most opposition and improvements against human degradation has come from those who hold Judeo-Christian values, and thus believe in God.

There’s no way around it.

I would tend to agree, I can’t see another basis for objective human dignity and rights other than one outside of and superior to the human sphere. Sure we can have rights by agreement and convention but I believe that “conventional rights” as it were presuppose inherent universal rights not conferred by the state or simoly by humanity.

 

[Theophorus]

The only rational basis for inherent universal human dignity is that we are all children of the same Father. If we are not intended to exist and just happen to co-exist by an accident of birth there is no valid reason to believe in the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity or in love, goodness, justice, freedom or dignity.

Dignity and love yes, but I would say that the others you mention can, in a way, be conferred by convention, as a kind of lockean social contract. This of course would be by convention and not by nature as subject to change at the whim of the majority.

I however see basic human dignity as a perquisite for the rest. IMO basic and intrinsic dignity and rights flow from our status as created by God. Justice presupposes Rights. And freedom, equality, fraternity and liberty presuppose justice (justice as giving the other person their due).

 

[Theophorus]

Theo:

I think so: Certainly we have “rights” because we are creatures of God. But, we don’t osmotically possess “rights” until and unless they are specifically reciprocated. The impetus for such reciprocity is part of the Natural Law, which is something written on our hearts by virtue of our inclusion in community. Though they may be unstated, you have rights precisely because I accord them to you and you, in turn, accord the same to me. I hope I sad that sufficiently well enough to be understandable.

God bless,
jd

Interesting POV, rights then are subjective but demanded by natural law it that it?
This sounds like rights based on convention rather than inherent rights.
On that view I don’t recognise your rights(say right to life) do you have them?
Or likewise if the majority don’t recognise your rights(say as a blinding to natural law as often happens in totalitarian regimes) do you still have them?

 

[Theophorus]

The human person is worthy of profound respect is an objective fact in that it exists independently. Of course, there are many, many reasons why this is true about the human person. The many, many, reasons are why both theists and non-theists can recognize the truth of the statement. Theists and non-theists are not restricted to using the same reason.

Of course I agree that the human person is worthy of profound respect by virtue of being.

I would be interested in hearing some of the reasons why non-catholics would recognise the truth of this statment. How can we prove it is an objective fact which exists independently?
What argument would non-theists use or be convinced by?

 

[tonyrey]

The only rational basis for inherent universal human dignity is that we are all children of the same Father. If we are not intended to exist and just happen to co-exist by an accident of birth there is no valid reason to believe in the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity or in love, goodness, justice, freedom or dignity.

The whim of the majority is not a rational, adequate or binding basis for anything!

I however see basic human dignity as a perquisite for the rest. IMO basic and intrinsic dignity and rights flow from our status as created by God. Justice presupposes Rights. And freedom, equality, fraternity and liberty presuppose justice (justice as giving the other person their due).

 

[inocente]

Or is there some fundamental attribute of humanity on which we can base human rights without reference to a legislator or to God?

Yes, you can derive them directly from the Golden Rule.

(I guess that strictly speaking what is derived is a set of statements about dignity and justice, which can then be converted into the modern form of rights).

 

[Gaber]

Naturally as a Catholic I see my creation by God as a human being as the basis for my human dignity, my rights, and so for justice which is objective and which transcends man made law.

but to play advocatus diaboli I ask:

Without direct reference to God, that is to say on philosophical grounds, Is there something we can base such universal human rights on?

Or Would we say they are universal merely by convention and only by virtue of human law?

Or is there some fundamental attribute of humanity on which we can base human rights without reference to a legislator or to God?

I know where I stand but I am interested to hear the views of others

As “God” is ALL, there isn’t anything that is not referenced to THAT in Reality. In mentality, that have another story. In that story, universal human rights to thedegree those was percieved, have always been predicated on the ancient idea of th Golden Rule or its forms, that being predicated on the simple commonality of being human. The question often was, though, “who is human?” Slaves weren’t. Women in practice weren’t. Children weren’t. So it boils down to “Who is human?,” “Do I identify with/as that human?,” And “Will I then treat that human as I would treat myself?”

 

[sw85]

Interestingly, I referenced “human dignity” recently in another post concerning the “right” to gay “marriage”: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9294879#post9294879

I have heard it said before that this “right” comes from the “innate dignity” of the human person. I would defy that person to explain what this “innate dignity” is, what it means, and how/why a “right” to “gay marriage” derives from it. Incidentally, the person I heard this from was a leftist atheist who had just denied my natural law take against homosexuality on the grounds that “human nature” is a subjective fiction, that the phrase “humanity” is a mere heuristic for describing a large mass of dissimilar people with no correspondence to objective reality. Well, obviously, if he believes this, there is no reason to believe in anything like the “innate dignity” of the human person, anyway. You can derive an understanding of “innate dignity” from a Christian or Aristotelian understanding of human nature, but both of these systems explicitly deride homosexuality as contrary to man’s dignity. Man’s dignity consists in him doing that which is consistent with his nature, i.e., in becoming an excellent, exemplary human. This is clearly inconsistent with homosexuality in general. You certainly can’t derive such an understanding from a system that denies there is such a thing as “humanity” or “human nature,” much less “God.”

 

[grannymh]

Of course I agree that the human person is worthy of profound respect by virtue of being.

I would be interested in hearing some of the reasons why non-catholics would recognise the truth of this statment.

Them critters are like me. I yield to other reasons…

How can we prove it is an objective fact which exists independently?

One easy way is to think about all the annoying things about one’s neighbor which are true. Does her loud music change her human nature? What about the neighbor on the other side? Does his generosity depend on our opinions of him?

By virtue of being, the human person is worthy of profound respect. This does not imply that everything a human person does is worthy of respect or that a perfect physical body is necessary. The very old are worthy of our profound respect not necessarily because of the generosity of their youth but because of their human nature which is retained despite its frailty.

Another way to demonstrate that human nature exists independently is that human nature existed before we were born and there will be human nature after we die.
Human nature does not depend on our eye sight.

What argument would non-theists use or be convinced by?

There are some marvelous posts by non-theists describing their sense of moral actions. Usually, the thread discussion revolves the need of God for a system of morality. My point is that regardless of one’s worldview or belief/non-belief in the supernatural, the human person is recognizable as worthy of profound respect. This is because the human person has both intellective powers as well as a will to seek good. How these powers, including the will to choose, came about is not the issue because these powers are innate to human nature itself.

Note: Universal dignity of the human person is the foundation for why the human person is worthy of profound respect. The basic recognitition that the human person is worthy of profound respect can be expressed as the universal dignity of humankind.

 

[JDaniel]

Interesting POV, rights then are subjective but demanded by natural law it that it?

Theo:

I don’t think we can say that "rights are (completely) subjective.’ Although, some are, e.g., the so-called right to privacy, and so-called animal rights. It’s not easy to verbalize this conception. We are all aware of such things as that which we call, “unspoken.” For example, we each know what pain feels like and, if we’re not aberrated, do not wish pain on others. So, we instantly co-agree that both of us desire to be pain-free, and without much (if any) speech, co-agree to confer this accord to one another.

This sounds like rights based on convention rather than inherent rights.

But, there are inherent rights. Such as natural rights owned by us regardless of race or religion. When a race, for example, denies the co-conference of human rights to another race, they violate their mutual agreement with the family of societies, whether spoken or unspoken.

On that view I don’t recognise your rights(say right to life) do you have them?

Only insofar as I accord it to you. Otherwise, it’s the “wild, wild West.” The right to life is no doubt a bit stronger than merely a co-operative venture. Like our races, we have no choice about being born.

Or likewise if the majority don’t recognise your rights(say as a blinding to natural law as often happens in totalitarian regimes) do you still have them?

Think about that for a moment. In a totalitarian regime, does anyone actually have any rights? The bosses might, but the rest of us, more than likely none at all. The State has all of the rights. Why? Because the State has the strength - at least for a time. For example, shouldn’t unborn human beings have the right to life? Do they though?

It’s one thing to say that so and so should have such and such. But what is that? Glad-mouthing? Sounds without referents? The real question is: do we have them or not?

God bless,
jd

 

[Theophorus]

Theo:

I don’t think we can say that "rights are (completely) subjective.’ Although, some are, e.g., the so-called right to privacy, and so-called animal rights. It’s not easy to verbalize this conception. We are all aware of such things as that which we call, “unspoken.” For example, we each know what pain feels like and, if we’re not aberrated, do not wish pain on others. So, we instantly co-agree that both of us desire to be pain-free, and without much (if any) speech, co-agree to confer this accord to one another.

So by convention we want to be pain free. What I’m trying to ask is which rights are inherent and not based on convention, but more importantly why are they inherent rather than based on convention?

But, there are inherent rights. Such as natural rights owned by us regardless of race or religion. When a race, for example, denies the co-conference of human rights to another race, they violate their mutual agreement with the family of societies, whether spoken or unspoken.

Think about that for a moment. In a totalitarian regime, does anyone actually have any rights? The bosses might, but the rest of us, more than likely none at all. The State has all of the rights. Why? Because the State has the strength - at least for a time. For example, shouldn’t unborn human beings have the right to life? Do they though?

Now I would say that inherent(basic/fundamental) rights are confered neither by government nor convention, so yes people still have such rights in a totalitarian regime but their rights are being denied.

I find this a very fasinating area and I thank you for sharing your point of view.

 

[Theophorus]

Them critters are like me. I yield to other reasons…

One easy way is to think about all the annoying things about one’s neighbor which are true. Does her loud music change her human nature? What about the neighbor on the other side? Does his generosity depend on our opinions of him?.

Ah so human dignity and rights are based on human nature on your view, fair enough we would agree for the most part here.

By virtue of being, the human person is worthy of profound respect. This does not imply that everything a human person does is worthy of respect or that a perfect physical body is necessary. The very old are worthy of our profound respect not necessarily because of the generosity of their youth but because of their human nature which is retained despite its frailty.

Couldn’t agree more being not acting is the hallmark of being a human person.

So on your view, from being flows nature, and from nature flows dignity which gives rights, yes?

Another way to demonstrate that human nature exists independently is that human nature existed before we were born and there will be human nature after we die.
Human nature does not depend on our eye sight.

There are some marvelous posts by non-theists describing their sense of moral actions. Usually, the thread discussion revolves the need of God for a system of morality. My point is that regardless of one’s worldview or belief/non-belief in the supernatural, the human person is recognizable as worthy of profound respect. This is because the human person has both intellective powers as well as a will to seek good. How these powers, including the will to choose, came about is not the issue because these powers are innate to human nature itself.

I will certainly check those threads out, but I do thank you for your contributions and your time you have given much food for thought. I must now ask though what is innate to human nature?

It is(if it exists at all depending on who you talk to!) is the source of much speculation and disagreement in modern anthropological circles. Looking at the modern view of the human person I don’t know how much agreement you would actually get on what constitutes a human person much less human nature. For instance some human persons(such as the unborn or very young, or mentally impaired) only have the potential rather than the actual capability for intellective power or the will to seek the good. Where do they fall on this view?

Note: Universal dignity of the human person is the foundation for why the human person is worthy of profound respect. The basic recognitition that the human person is worthy of profound respect can be expressed as the universal dignity of humankind.

That’s an interesting if slightly circular foundation: dignity=respect=dignity

 

[grannymh]

Ah so human dignity and rights are based on human nature on your view, fair enough we would agree for the most part here.

Couldn’t agree more being not acting is the hallmark of being a human person.

So on your view, from being flows nature, and from nature flows dignity which gives rights, yes?

I do not know the correct philosophical terminology; however, I am a tad more concise. For me there is no flowing. Being is human nature is dignity. As for rights, this is an addition to the conversation.

The basic “right” of the human person is to receive profound respect. How that “profound respect” is acted out becomes a system of morality. Upfront, I have a different view of morality because I see that as a description of a particular action.

I will certainly check those threads out, but I do thank you for your contributions and your time you have given much food for thought. I must now ask though what is innate to human nature?

It is(if it exists at all depending on who you talk to!) is the source of much speculation and disagreement in modern anthropological circles. Looking at the modern view of the human person I don’t know how much agreement you would actually get on what constitutes a human person much less human nature. For instance some human persons(such as the unborn or very young, or mentally impaired) only have the potential rather than the actual capability for intellective power or the will to seek the good. Where do they fall on this view?

Innate to human nature are the material anatomy and the spiritual soul. I like to stick to the basics.

The spiritual soul, directly created by God, is what makes the matter of conception a true person. In my simplistic view, potential and capability are roughly the same principles in both the material anatomy and the spiritual soul. Both need to be coupled with action. However, “action” is not always possible for one reason or another. I see God as loving the unborn, the mentally impaired, and the physically disabled because each is a true person, spirit and matter, soul and body, made in the image of God.

That’s an interesting if slightly circular foundation: dignity=respect=dignity

It is intended to be circular. I am old enough to remember a 75 cents ticket admission to the movie theatre on Saturday afternoon where we were enthralled by the black and white Westerns. “Circle the wagons” was a call which meant strength and safety in times of danger. I have never forgotten the importance of “circular”.
We live now in dangerous times.