Stupidity of Dignity?

[Cure_of_Ars]

It looks like a lot of the Catholic argument regarding bioethics works around the concept of dignity. Here is some arguments against this.

First, dignity is relative. One doesn’t have to be a scientific or moral relativist to notice that ascriptions of dignity vary radically with the time, place, and beholder. In olden days, a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking. We chuckle at the photographs of Victorians in starched collars and wool suits hiking in the woods on a sweltering day, or at the Brahmins and patriarchs of countless societies who consider it beneath their dignity to pick up a dish or play with a child. Thorstein Veblen wrote of a French king who considered it beneath his dignity to move his throne back from the fireplace, and one night roasted to death when his attendant failed to show up. Kass finds other people licking an ice-cream cone to be shamefully undignified; I have no problem with it.

Second, dignity is fungible. The Council and Vatican treat dignity as a sacred value, never to be compromised. In fact, every one of us voluntarily and repeatedly relinquishes dignity for other goods in life. Getting out of a small car is undignified. Having sex is undignified. Doffing your belt and spread- eagling to allow a security guard to slide a wand up your crotch is undignified. Most pointedly, modern medicine is a gantlet of indignities. Most readers of this article have undergone a pelvic or rectal examination, and many have had the pleasure of a colonoscopy as well. We repeatedly vote with our feet (and other body parts) that dignity is a trivial value, well worth trading off for life, health, and safety.

Third, dignity can be harmful. In her comments on the Dignity volume, Jean Bethke Elshtain rhetorically asked, “Has anything good ever come from denying or constricting human dignity?” The answer is an emphatic “yes.” Every sashed and be-medaled despot reviewing his troops from a lofty platform seeks to command respect through ostentatious displays of dignity. Political and religious repressions are often rationalized as a defense of the dignity of a state, leader, or creed: Just think of the Salman Rushdie fatwa, the Danish cartoon riots, or the British schoolteacher in Sudan who faced flogging and a lynch mob because her class named a teddy bear Mohammed. Indeed, totalitarianism is often the imposition of a leader’s conception of dignity on a population, such as the identical uniforms in Maoist China or the burqas of the Taliban. (The Stupidity of Dignity)

Why are his points wrong?

 

[cpayne]

Perhaps no one has responded yet because the quote you posted is just too big a chunk to handle. Steven Pinker, the aggressive atheist who wrote the article, is attacking the Bioethics Commission headed by Leon Kass, which has just released a very good book (which Pinker hates). Pinker’s main problem is that he takes “human dignity” as “anything cultures have every thought of as dignified or undignified” and then he claims this is variable.

Well, duh. An abortion clinic may be a very “dignified” place to work, under this definition. However, that is not what the commission is referring to as “dignity.”

Let me just give another quote from Pinker, from earlier in the article: “Government-sponsored bioethics does not want medical practice to maximize health and flourishing; it considers that quest to be a bad thing, not a good thing.” Anyone who would write this and really think it is virtually beyond the reach of logic or common sense. I really can’t believe The New Republic published it.

 

[didymus]

Let me just give another quote from Pinker, from earlier in the article: “Government-sponsored bioethics does not want medical practice to maximize health and flourishing; it considers that quest to be a bad thing, not a good thing.” Anyone who would write this and really think it is virtually beyond the reach of logic or common sense. I really can’t believe The New Republic published it.

YIKES!!
And people wonder why Americans reject socialised medicine.

From a response by Fr. James Martin, SJ writing in America:

But voluntary relinquishments of dignity are not the point. Involuntary ones are. The fetus does not voluntarily choose to relinquish life. The worker in the developing world is not voluntarily denied a living wage. The child living in a slum does not voluntarily choose hunger. The handicapped person does not voluntarily choose to be discriminated against. The nursing-home patient does not voluntarily choose to be treated inhumanely. The torture victim does not voluntarily choose physical agony. The victim of genocide does not voluntarily choose death.

This is quite different from getting out of a small car. In Catholic social teaching, human dignity has little to do with occasionally looking “undignified” or “silly.” It is about the inviolable value and worth of every human being, who is created by God. But this foundational concept in human rights is not something that appeals simply to Catholics, or Christians, or even simply to believers. As Pope Benedict XVI said in his recent speech to the U.N. General Assembly, “Human rights are increasingly being presented as the common language and the ethical substratum of international relations. At the same time, the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of human rights all serve as guarantees safeguarding human dignity.”

 

[cpayne]

Thanks for the reference to Martin’s article. That was helpful.

 

[Cure_of_Ars]

That response was a slam dunk by Fr. James Martin. Thanks for the replies.

 

[cpayne]

I just came across this this morning: If you want to see what Leon Kass himself thinks of Pinker, read the June / July issue of First Things, pages 68-69.

 

[Spirithound]

First, dignity is relative…glimpse of stocking…Victorians in starched collars…hiking in the woods…pick up a dish or play with a child…

Perhaps some form of dignity is relative, but the form that we are concerned with is our dignity as beings in the likeness and image of God. This dignity, which comes from God Himself, is absolute and inherent. It is neither dependent on the times, nor variable for any member of the human race.

Second, dignity is fungible. The Council and Vatican treat dignity as a sacred value, never to be compromised…relinquishes dignity for other goods in life…small car is undignified…Having sex is undignified (WHAT?)…belt and spread- eagling…rectal examination…colonoscopy…We repeatedly vote with our feet (and other body parts) that dignity is a trivial value, well worth trading off for life, health, and safety.

Certainly it is possible to take any level of dignity and lower it for whatever reason. The examples above point to that, as does the reality of using stemcells of aborted fetuses. The question must be now, is it permissible? The relative dignity refered to in the first paragraph is collected and bestowed by men. If i want to look dignified, I go out and buy a tuxedo and wear it around town. People will then stop and look at me, and acknowledge that I look dignified. The absolute dignity that I refered to, however, is a gift. God bestows that dignity upon us, and therefore we must not cast it off lightly. Is it not the case that the examples in the original quote are in fact examples of casting off a certain dignity for the purposes of a greater dignity? We submit to medical exams of all sorts because we realize the dignity of life. We submit to frisking at the airport because we recognize the greater dignity of life.
But there is a hierarchy. One may dispense with some relative dignity for the benefit of an absolute dignity. It would also be permissible to be a martyr for Christ’s sake, since His dignity is higher than that my own. May we take someone else’s absolute dignity for the benefit of a fourth party’s dignity? No, that seems akin to stealing, does it not?

Third, dignity can be harmful. Every sashed and be-medaled despot reviewing his troops from a lofty platform seeks to command respect through ostentatious displays of dignity…Indeed, totalitarianism is often the imposition of a leader’s conception of dignity on a population…

Now that’s just silly. You can’t blame “dignity” for a tyrant’s actions. Ostentatious displays are only one tool available to them. Hitler was a magnificent speaker, so I’ve heard, and very charismatic.

 

[didymus]

A plug here – I found the Stupidity of Dignity plus Fr. Martin’s reply on The Anchoress blog. She’s very interesting, jumps around a lot from liturgical abuse to mocking politicians to the culture of death, so hang on.

Check it out.