A philosophical basis for inherent universal human dignity

[Gaber]

I doubt very much whether a materialist would recognise Truth, Essence or the Self…

And that statement is pertinent to something?

 

[tonyrey]

If there is no objective morality there is no obligation to use, trust or respect reason and science. To do so implies that reason is* objectively valuable ***

The separation of right and reasonable is wrong and unreasonable! If reason is valuable it is wrong and unreasonable not to value it by respecting it and using it.

The problem is you’re trying to equivocate ‘being right’ and ‘being reasonable’.

Petitio principii!

Essentially reason has an objective utilitarian value which is independent from morality.

1. Utilitarian value is not necessarily incompatible with moral value.
2. Reason is so fundamental it is an essential foundation for morality.
3. Have you ever come across an unreasonable moral system?
4. We cannot be moral unless we are reasonable.
5. We cannot be reasonable unless we are moral because being reasonable implies having moral integrity.
6. Why are scientists condemned for falsifying their results?

 

[tonyrey]

I doubt very much whether a materialist would recognise Truth, Essence or the Self…

To a philosophical basis for inherent universal human dignity!

 

[Gaber]

To a philosophical basis for inherent universal human dignity!

OK, so???

 

[tonyrey]

To a philosophical basis for inherent universal human dignity!

I give up.

 

[sw85]

Hmm. The choice to believe the professionals at the UN who advocate human rights day-to-day, or someone I just met on the internet. That’s a poser.

I think for those who develop, evangelize and enforce rights, their point is valid, any attempt to divide rights up inevitably leads to some being taken as derived or less important and the game is lost.

Well, it’s not like you’re being asked to evaluate a claim beyond your level of expertise, such that you have to choose between two competing authorities. All I’m saying is that there is no reason to believe that the assertion “rights derive from human dignity” is anything but that – an assertion, and one without force. How do these people define rights? How do they define human dignity? What is to stop anyone from declaring that some new right no one ever recognized before (like gay “marriage,” which no one thought was a right until about five minutes ago) is consistent with human dignity? It’s not a thing. It’s just license for degenerates to demand that the state give them money, which is exactly how they’ve used it.

By contrast, like I said, you can get an idea of “human dignity” from a Christian understanding of man, but even then it’s not a terribly useful idea, much less some kind of rights-generator. The rights-generator in Catholic theology (which is the only really coherent theology out there) is the natural law itself, which is also our duty-generator.

 

[theblindlead]

Thanks for your imput, I must say that most philosophers I know are Theists, but then most philosophers I know are Aristotelian Thomists

lets be serious Aristotelian Thomists are the best philosophers to hang with. I go to North Dakota State University and we have a teacher that formally taught at seminary and he is an Aristotelian Thomist and is by far the best teach in the philosophy department.

So on this view it is because we exist as a “thinking thing” of some description, which is conscious in some way, that we have Inherent Human Dignity?

yes it is basically that we have dignity because we are a thinking thing the most famous version (in my opinion) of this is Kant who basically states that autonomy is the reason for all dignity. the fact that you are an autonomous agent allows to your legislate/become the driving force behind that moral laws that drive all humans

thank you this is interesting. I know we can’t generalise Modern Philosophy into one big monolithic thing so the Devils Advocate in me wants to ask what about such a view in conparrison with a Marxist/Feuerbachian/Skinnerian view which sees us not as thinking things Per Se but complex things which are results of actions and conditioning. Would such a view as you present still hold.

someone like skinner who was a determinist would argue the exact opposite of what i just said. he would argue that we obviously do not have free will. determinism seems to destroy the value of the human person. we are no different than rocks or dogs that can’t control themselves when they see food. most would argue that determinist’s seems to undercut human dignity.

so to answer your question i would say that at best most determinists assume that humans have dignity from a pragmatic stand point but when it really comes down to it most would claim that we have no more dignity than anything else

hope this helps broaden your scope of looking at these issues. to tell you the truth i firmly believe that it is impossible for there to be morality/human dignity without God and what i was talking about are great things to think about but i feel that they ultimately fall flat

 

[Reivax]

The separation of right and reasonable is wrong and unreasonable! If reason is valuable it is wrong and unreasonable not to value it by respecting it and using it.

Right =

Morally good, justified, or acceptable.

Reasonable =

Having sound judgment; fair and sensible.

You are equivocating these two mutually exclusive terms, they have VERY distinct meanings. Sound judgment can be determined without morality. It is reasonable to suggest that a triangle has 3 sides, but it’s not ‘right’ - right and wrong are moral terms.

Petitio principii!

I am not assuming the initial point. I clearly showed you WHY I take this statement to be true. Where I said “this has nothing to do with ‘right’ and ‘wrong’”. But I have provided two definitions to clear any more confusion.

1. Utilitarian value is not necessarily incompatible with moral value.

I agree, but I never said it was incompatible, I just said it is independent.

1. Reason is so fundamental it is an essential foundation for morality.

Yes.

1. Have you ever come across an unreasonable moral system?

Yes, but it depends how unreasonable is defined. There are reasons and arguments made for each, but I find some to be more unreasonable than others, but that does not make them completely unreasonable.

1. We cannot be moral unless we are reasonable.
2. We cannot be reasonable unless we are moral because being reasonable implies having moral integrity.

Again, it depends how you define ‘reasonable’. Because if being reasonable means believing in a deity, then you are suggesting that atheists are unreasonable, but that means you believe that atheists cannot be moral.

1. Why are scientists condemned for falsifying their results?

They are?

 

[tonyrey]

The separation of right and reasonable is wrong and unreasonable! If reason is valuable it is wrong and unreasonable not to value it by respecting it and using it.

The issue is not whether the judgment is sound but whether we act according to that judgment or disregard it.

1. Utilitarian value is not necessarily incompatible with moral value.

I agree, but I never said it was incompatible, I just said it is independent.

In that case the utilitarian value of reasoning does not exclude its moral value.

2. Reason is so fundamental it is an essential foundation for morality.

Yes.

Therefore it is immoral to be unreasonable because in effect one is rejecting the essential foundation for morality

3. Have you ever come across an unreasonable moral system?

Yes, but it depends how unreasonable is defined. There are reasons and arguments made for each, but I find some to be more unreasonable than others, but that does not make them completely unreasonable.

Precisely! Fallibility does not imply that one is being unreasonable.

1. We cannot be moral unless we are reasonable.

5. We cannot be reasonable unless we are moral because being reasonable implies having moral integrity.

Again, it depends how you define ‘reasonable’. Because if being reasonable means believing in a deity, then you are suggesting that atheists are unreasonable, but that means you believe that atheists cannot be moral.

Being reasonable does not necessarily entail believing in a deity but it does entail abiding by logical principles and the laws of thought. Not to do so deliberately is dishonest and immoral because there is intent to deceive.

6. Why are scientists condemned for falsifying their results?

They are?

There have been plenty of scientific hoaxes and scandals when scientists tried to deceive others.

 

[levinas12]

Let’s suppose you subject truth to the very strict protocols of the scientific method.

I grant you that “scientific method” may be somewhat ambiguous. But generally it involves perception by the senses, along with experimentation, empirical validation and mathematization.

For those for whom the scientific method is the only way to the truth, how can the “truth” of human rights be established?

We don’t perceive “human rights” with our senses. There are no experiments involved, no empirical validation of results, no mathematization.

So, if we’re limited to the scientific method, how can we have access to the truth of human rights?