We've taken dignity way too far. We've reached a point where we basically think it should be enforced, at least via social pressure, which is ridiculous.

You don't get respect by forcing people to respect you. You have to earn it.

Trying to control others, trying to force them to do things, is not generally a good way to try to earn respect.

Hmmm, beside theology? I can think of something, but it's not perfect. You can argue like this.

As a human I want to be happy and respected - > We want others to Respect us (That is our dignity) because I'm a human- > Others are human - > So if you want to be respected as a human you must respect other as human too.

When you disregard "Human Dignity" it means "You want to be happy, without caring about the happiness or respect of other people" - > this mean You (Yourself) are without "Human Dignity" and as Human with "Human Dignity" it's okay for us to make you Unhappy (by locking you up)

This concept (almost like lock's idea of natural law) is put in reality and many people does it. That's why you can argue, we, as human deem that "Human Dignity" is real because we use it (like money).

Some folks reference the 'social contract' which seems to be a kind of underlying mutual altruism found in tribal groups.

^Agree, look up "Social Contract"

Along the lines of "natural law" as mentioned by diesynyang and matt, Diderot also spoke of dignity as a natural right based upon our likeness to each other. The element of equality prompts me to see the idea through the universal hatred to being humiliated. The idea is not just about the experience felt by each individual but how it let's us see other people's experience.

Hmmm, beside theology? I can think of something, but it's not perfect. You can argue like this.

As a human I want to be happy and respected - > We want others to Respect us (That is our dignity) because I'm a human- > Others are human - > So if you want to be respected as a human you must respect other as human too.

When you disregard "Human Dignity" it means "You want to be happy, without caring about the happiness or respect of other people" - > this mean You (Yourself) are without "Human Dignity" and as Human with "Human Dignity" it's okay for us to make you Unhappy (by locking you up)

This concept (almost like lock's idea of natural law) is put in reality and many people does it. That's why you can argue, we, as human deem that "Human Dignity" is real because we use it (like money). — diesynyang

I only want others to respect me if they feel I've earned their respect.

What I care about far more than respect are:

(1) Laissez-fairism; that I'm allowed/left alone to do my own thing (insofar as it only involves parties acting consensually towards each other)

and

(2) Honesty, including that if you honestly don't respect me, you honestly think I'm an a-hole, a moron--whatever, you tell me.

Of course, you could parse (1) and (2) as some sense of "respect," I suppose, but that's not usually what people are talking about in these discussions. Usually "telling someone you think they're a moron" isn't included in what people are shooting for re "respect."

People doing (1) and (2) are doing two important things towards earning my respect, by the way.

Re this:
"This mean You (Yourself) are without 'Human Dignity' and as Human with 'Human Dignity' it's okay for us to make you Unhappy (by locking you up)"

You're saying that as if you believe that it logically follows, but it doesn't.

it seems that you are refering to us longing for happiness. Doesnt animals also long for happiness? But there is no "animal dignity"
The question is why we are allowed to use animals but never humans.

Most Catholic philosophers/theologians seem to believe that we have "Human dignity" since we are made for something bigger/greater ie Heaven (eternal happiness with The Existence itself).
I wonder how that could be proved with only philosophy?

Why do you think we have human dignity?
Or if you even think so!?

I umderstand that one evidence for our dignity is the ability we when it comes to know right from wrong. Some seem better at it than others.
I say that the natural law is a very Good evidence. We often think about and ponder upon if there is something greater than all this.
Still I am not sure that this is an argument against "using" Another person like you can do with animals.

Oftentimes, it seems that we as humans can see greater purposes for actions and object than animals can.
We can by practice see the full purpose of eating, sex and so on. This could be seem as evidence but I am looking for how professomional philosophers have argued.

Sorry, can you phrase it another way? I don't grasp all of the point that you're arguing



If we put God out, Why we have Human Dignity? Because we created it (The Social Contract).

You're talking about the Capabilities of thinking above mere impulse. But I argue even if that human could Only think like animal, that himan still has "Human Dignity". Because we created it. And we as human, apply it to all human.

We can "Use" animal, simply because "They are not Human" they lacked "The Human Dignity" (If you having trouble with that concept it's okay, today many vegan want to create the Animal Dignity Concept)

↪Terrapin Station

Sorry, can you phrase it another way? I don't grasp all of the point that you're arguing

↪musicpianoaccordion

If we put God out, Why we have Human Dignity? Because we created it (The Social Contract).

You're talking about the Capabilities of thinking above mere impulse. But I argue even if that human could Only think like animal, that himan still has "Human Dignity". Because we created it. And we as human, apply it to all human.

We can "Use" animal, simply because "They are not Human" they lacked "The Human Dignity" (If you having trouble with that concept it's okay, today many vegan want to create the Animal Dignity Concept)

Well, first, it's just that I don't automatically want respect. In other words, I don't believe that anyone is or should be treated as if they're obligated to respect me.

I only want people to respect me if they feel I've earned their respect.

As I mentioned in my first post in the thread, I don't believe that respect even makes any sense if it's an obligation and not something earned. "Obligated respect" isn't actually respect. It's some kind of weird "enforced politeness" (per only certain persons' opinions of what's polite, of course).

It works similarly to trust. You can't force trust or make it obligated. That wouldn't make any sense. No one trusts anyone else just because they're told they have to, just because they're required to, or required to act as if they trust them. People have to earn trust from particular individuals, or those individuals will not trust them.

Human dignity is not "the dignity of mankind" but the dignity to be alive, to be free, and to make good choises, the best choices possibles.

Ahh I see, but "Human Dignity" are Implanted, not earned. That is, you get it just by the fact that you are human, hence it's called "Human Dignity" not "A good Person Dignity".

The problem with "earned" Human Dignity, means that they are Humans that doesn't worthy enough for Human Dignity.

This Human Dignity, not only Implanted, it even can be said cannot be took away, even if the person that has it throw it away by consent. People would still value them as Human with Human Dignity.

You are free to not respect a human as a good person, but you shouldn't view people as "A person that don't have any Human Dignity" that is like slavery mindset dude

The question now is "what is Human Dignity?", you can read


^

Or you can search "Basic Human Right" on google

Ahh I see, but "Human Dignity" are Implanted, not earned. — diesynyang

Obviously I don't agree with that insofar as we're talking about respect, which is typically a component of the definition of "human dignity."

The problem with "earned" Human Dignity, means that they are Humans that doesn't worthy enough for Human Dignity. — diesynyang

Yes. There are definitely people who you will feel are not worth respect.

Fair enough, the problem lies in "Respect" ( feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.)


If you think that there are Human that doesn't earn Respect, that is fine, I also have people that I don't respect.

But that kind of respect, and "Human Dignity" way of respect is diffrent. The Diffrence is a bit abstract. Which is like this :

Think of the most unhuman evil person in the world. Is it Right, to degrade that human as a mere caddle, a mere object to punish and use? Is it right to unhumanly do immorall conduct on that person?

The answer should be no right? No Human, whatever they has done deserve to be treated as an object/animal

They may don't earn our respect, but we should treat them as human. That is the abstract concept of Human Dignity.

Get the gist of it?

Think of the most unhuman evil person in the world. Is it Right, to degrade that human as a mere caddle, a mere object to punish and use? Is it right to unhumanly do immorall conduct on that person?

The answer should be no right? No Human, whatever they has done deserve to be treated as an object/animal

They may don't earn our respect, but we should treat them as human. That is the abstract concept of Human Dignity. — diesynyang

Well, literally, humans are animals, and we're all objects,and morality, what it's right to do, etc. are subjective, but sure, I agree with not treating other humans like they're some significantly sort of different creature/animal/object than I am if that's all we're saying.

That is Human Dignity. Sadly, what you said is true, subjectively we are animal and object. And some people do think that there are some Human who could be treated as mere object for pleasure.

These kind of human thinks in the end "Might Makes Right" and "As long I have Might, I can do anything".

Again, were ARE mere objects. It's just that some objects think and have desires and so on.

I would say that Dignity has to do with being put aside or being special. You can even talk about dignified persons.
Dignity could come from the fact that we have imortal souls. Here i am thinking of how Aquinas thought about it. I studied him a bit but not that much.

According to a Youtube video "two concepts of human dignity" there are two ways to look at the Word in catholic tradition. They are used interchangeably.
How do you define human dignity?
Maybe one cannot!

If you put God, in the equation you can say >

Dignity could come from the fact that we have imortal souls — musicpianoaccordion

(Which Is not per say, exact *Cough the correct way is, Human Dignity is God's Image *cough)

The Social Contract argument of Human Dignity, is valid.

But what if we also put aside the social contract argument. THEN The Nihilist argument come in.

Which is, "Human and animal are the same (Because we put aside social contract and there is no God), We can do anything to human as long we are able"

: D