Is The Concept Of Human Dignity...

[seer]

I suspect it would be utterly impossible to find a culture that did not value humanity in some way, shape or form.

Failing to do so would be pretty quickly counterproductive to survival. And would be evolutionarily selected against pretty hard.

Plus, you know, the fact that we are all human and tend to value ourselves pretty highly, tends to mean we all value humans.

So I would tend to say it would be a universal. Although some ways of defining it would be cultural.

It would perfectly rational for the majority to exploit a minority to benefit the majority's survival. Most empires did this over history. The Nazis not only drove the Jews into camps, they took all their wealth to fuel their goals.

[Starlight]

It would mean that humans had worth despite what a particular society thought. The Rwandan genocide was immoral because creatures of transcendent value were murdered. When the Hutu reduced the Tutsi to beings without value (to be raped and murder at will) they were rationally and morally wrong. If the Tutsi really were beings without transcendent value then that valueless view, that opinion of the Hutu, was perfectly rational and morally justifiable.

Your example assumes a single-principle moral system. Empirically, from real-world surveys, any given person tends to hold multiple moral principles, which can often be in conflict with regard to how they speak to individual issues. e.g. a classic example is that people tend to agree that 'justice' is good, and 'mercy' is good, but the ideas of justice and mercy point in opposite directions when considering what punishment to give a specific criminal, and any judge has to decide on justice or mercy but can't have both at once.

The Hutu, like most people, probably empirically have all sorts of moral ideas and principles. One of those moral principles might well be the value of all humanity. But another of those moral principles is likely loyalty to their group and opposition to the group's enemies. During their genocidal actions the second won out over the first. But that's not indicative that they didn't also hold other moral principles.

[Starlight]

It would perfectly rational for the majority to exploit a minority to benefit the majority's survival. Most empires did this over history. The Nazis not only drove the Jews into camps, they took all their wealth to fuel their goals.

See my above post on people having multiple moral principles.

Also I would add that the Nazi's were big believers in humanity, and specifically it's advancement and improvement by getting rid of those in the species they saw as defective and those in the species they saw as most superior taking the lead. So they valued humanity as a whole very highly. Clearly that won out over the level of value they put on the individual human.

[seer]

Also I would add that the Nazi's were big believers in humanity, and specifically it's advancement and improvement by getting rid of those in the species they saw as defective and those in the species they saw as most superior taking the lead. So they valued humanity as a whole very highly. Clearly that won out over the level of value they put on the individual human.

So one can highly value humanity while murdering millions of innocent humans. What couldn't you fit into this philosophy?

[Starlight]

So one can highly value humanity while murdering millions of innocent humans. What couldn't you fit into this philosophy?

I'm unclear what your point is? Are you unaware of the fact that Hitler was obsessed with the idea of improving humanity and thought the Aryan people were evolutionarily superior to other humans and thought that he was improving humanity by culling the weak/defective as he saw them and increasing the amount of the strong races/genes? He valued humanity as a species, at the cost of the individual. Obviously the evolution process itself tends to do likewise. I don't know enough about Nazi philosophy to speak to whether they valued individual humans also, but simply thought the good of humanity as a species superseded it as a moral imperative in cases where the two were in conflict, or whether they flatly rejected the value of the individual human entirely.

Hence why I think you need to be more precise and what you mean by human dignity etc. Is it about valuing humans individually, valuing humanity as a whole / species etc, how important is it that when those values are in conflict one prioritizes a particular one of those values over the other?

[Stoic]

It would mean that humans had worth despite what a particular society thought. The Rwandan genocide was immoral because creatures of transcendent value were murdered. When the Hutu reduced the Tutsi to beings without value (to be raped and murder at will) they were rationally and morally wrong. If the Tutsi really were beings without transcendent value then that valueless view, that opinion of the Hutu, was perfectly rational and morally justifiable.

So there wouldn't be any practical difference. It would just make you feel better when you disagree with the Hutu, rather than making any difference in their behavior or your behavior.

[seer]

I'm unclear what your point is? Are you unaware of the fact that Hitler was obsessed with the idea of improving humanity and thought the Aryan people were evolutionarily superior to other humans and thought that he was improving humanity by culling the weak/defective as he saw them and increasing the amount of the strong races/genes? He valued humanity as a species, at the cost of the individual. Obviously the evolution process itself tends to do likewise. I don't know enough about Nazi philosophy to speak to whether they valued individual humans also, but simply thought the good of humanity as a species superseded it as a moral imperative in cases where the two were in conflict, or whether they flatly rejected the value of the individual human entirely.

Hence why I think you need to be more precise and what you mean by human dignity etc. Is it about valuing humans individually, valuing humanity as a whole / species etc, how important is it that when those values are in conflict one prioritizes a particular one of those values over the other?

Human dignity would apply to the individual, "humanity" is to vague and opens one up for exactly what a Hitler or Stalin did. The slaughter of a minority for the greater good.

[seer]

So there wouldn't be any practical difference. It would just make you feel better when you disagree with the Hutu, rather than making any difference in their behavior or your behavior.

My position, I believe, would offer a greater moral impetus and justification to push against the Hutu. If relativism is correct then why do we get to impose our view on them? Rationally? I think that is one reason why our Founders tied human rights to God. It makes for, logically, a more certain grounding of rights. I'm also suggesting that if a man believes his rights, or all rights, are more than mere social constructs he is more likely to contend for what is right.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It is one I agree with.

"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"

Then I must in part agree with Stoic and note that not only is such a definition a comparatively recent social construct but that it is also frequently ignored and overlooked.

[seer]

"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"

Then I must in part agree with Stoic and note that not only is such a definition a comparatively recent social construct but that it is also frequently ignored and overlooked.

I'm not sure what you mean by recent since you can come to this conclusion based on Biblical principle of all men being created in the image of God, or our Founders belief that all men are create equal. Frequently ignored and overlooked? Yes...

[shunyadragon]

So human human dignity is no more than a social construct..

As usual you selectively cite the Baha'i writings, which you do not believe, to justify your agenda, Hypocrisy par excellence. You neglect an important principle of the Baha'i Faith the Harmony of Science and Religion.

No not merely a human social construct. We are Created by God, and our morality, consciousness, human dignity, guilt (saving face from the Oriental perspective), evolved naturally through Creation, God Created naturally over billions of years the nature of our physical evidence

There is no objective evidence of the Divine origin. All we have is the objective evidence of natural origins involved, which can be adequately explained by natural evolution.

[Stoic]

My position, I believe, would offer a greater moral impetus and justification to push against the Hutu. If relativism is correct then why do we get to impose our view on them?

If relativism is correct, then we get to impose our view on them because we can, and because we think it is the right thing to do.

Rationally? I think that is one reason why our Founders tied human rights to God. It makes for, logically, a more certain grounding of rights. I'm also suggesting that if a man believes his rights, or all rights, are more than mere social constructs he is more likely to contend for what is right.

Even if you are correct, you are describing what, from my point of view, would be a Noble Lie.

While I'm not going to claim that I could never be convinced that such a Lie is justified, right now I don't believe it is.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'm not sure what you mean by recent since you can come to this conclusion based on Biblical principle of all men being created in the image of God

Disparate texts taken from various sections of the Hebrew bible are not really a convincing argument.

, or our Founders belief that all men are create equal.

Except for slaves and, when it came to voting rights, those who did own property.

Frequently ignored and overlooked? Yes

We agree on that.

[seer]

As usual you selectively cite the Baha'i writings, which you do not believe, to justify your agenda, Hypocrisy par excellence. You neglect an important principle of the Baha'i Faith the Harmony of Science and Religion.

No not merely a human social construct. We are Created by God, and our morality, consciousness, human dignity, guilt (saving face from the Oriental perspective), evolved naturally through Creation, God Created naturally over billions of years the nature of our physical evidence

There is no objective evidence of the Divine origin. All we have is the objective evidence of natural origins involved, which can be adequately explained by natural evolution.

What is your point? Your religion teaches that human dignity is related to the fact that we are created by God. Evolution does not confer dignity on anything or anyone.

[seer]

If relativism is correct, then we get to impose our view on them because we can, and because we think it is the right thing to do.

So in the end might defines right?

Even if you are correct, you are describing what, from my point of view, would be a Noble Lie.

Yes from your point of view, which is not Gospel IMHO....

While I'm not going to claim that I could never be convinced that such a Lie is justified, right now I don't believe it is.

Do you believe all human beings have dignity? If so why?