• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Human dignity governed by

just_me

I am here!
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
302
Location
Texas
Basic Beliefs
Understanding
Is human dignity governed by the adherence to a regiment of morale standards or is it through respect for the sovereignty of an individuals existence?
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
Either way autonomy of action is assumed.

The only way to have dignity is to have autonomy of action and belief.

Forced action or forced belief is to take dignity out of the picture, as Skinner said.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,313
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Is human dignity governed by the adherence to a regiment of morale standards or is it through respect for the sovereignty of an individuals existence?

Humans aren't dignified; We are ludicrous.

We deserve respect only insofar as we have earned it by respecting others. Moral standards might help; The concept of individual sovereignty is even more ludicrous than the humans who claim it as a basis for their demands to be respected.

Humans are a social species. We don't have sovereignty as individuals, and it is crazy to claim that we do (or should)
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Is human dignity governed by the adherence to a regiment of morale standards or is it through respect for the sovereignty of an individuals existence?

Dignity? Isn't that what one presumes for oneself vis a vis others. Me and you - me versus you range of tolerance?

Unlike bilby I believe one can understand oneself as unique and in charge, sovereign, and in your context, believe others are also thus.

It is my view morality is a social attribute. One can respect sovereignty, independence and control of oneself, in others.

However all and none of the above gets one to human dignity. Dignity is something one appreciates, feels for, sense, attributes in others. Consequently one may even imagine that aura in oneself falsely. However what is sensed is not dignity, It's an imagined conceit. When experienced it comes in the form of superior status, a basis for tribe and race identity socially.

Untermenche, as usual, is trying to change the subject.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
If I say autonomy is essential to dignity have I changed the subject?

Is talking about the subject in ways that make you uncomfortable changing it?
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
If I say autonomy is essential to dignity have I changed the subject?

Is talking about the subject in ways that make you uncomfortable changing it?

No. and No.

Dignity may rise as result of habit and that would make some uncomfortable.

Still even this latter is subject changing.

The question is simple ans should be answered directly.

How is dignity governed?
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
If I say autonomy is essential to dignity have I changed the subject?

Is talking about the subject in ways that make you uncomfortable changing it?

No. and No.

Dignity may rise as result of habit and that would make some uncomfortable.

Still even this latter is subject changing.

The question is simple ans should be answered directly.

How is dignity governed?

Defining terms is never changing the subject as squishy unformed undisciplined minds may think.
 

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
Is human dignity governed by the adherence to a regiment of morale standards or is it through respect for the sovereignty of an individuals existence?

Humans aren't dignified; We are ludicrous.

We deserve respect only insofar as we have earned it by respecting others. Moral standards might help; The concept of individual sovereignty is even more ludicrous than the humans who claim it as a basis for their demands to be respected.

Humans are a social species. We don't have sovereignty as individuals, and it is crazy to claim that we do (or should)

This post is one big false dichotomy. The social nature of humans is in no way incompatible with the idea that each person should allowed ultimate authority/power/decision over their own physical person.

In fact, without this concept there no basic for any kind of ethics or morals other than the completely arbitrary decree of some unquestionable authority.

The very notion of "harm" rests upon the assumption that the person being "harmed" does like prefer and consent to the effects the action has upon them.

We can and should have ethics that are not merely based in arbitrary authority, thus we can and should recognize individual sovereignty, with the logically imposed internal limit being that if a person's actions infringe upon the sovereignty of another that this person losese their right to control their own actions (e.g., they go to jail).

What this means for social interactions is simply that they must be negotiated and consensual rather than enacted via force.
 

just_me

I am here!
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
302
Location
Texas
Basic Beliefs
Understanding
Is human dignity governed by the adherence to a regiment of morale standards or is it through respect for the sovereignty of an individuals existence?

Humans aren't dignified; We are ludicrous.

We deserve respect only insofar as we have earned it by respecting others. Moral standards might help; The concept of individual sovereignty is even more ludicrous than the humans who claim it as a basis for their demands to be respected.

Humans are a social species. We don't have sovereignty as individuals, and it is crazy to claim that we do (or should)

This post is one big false dichotomy. The social nature of humans is in no way incompatible with the idea that each person should allowed ultimate authority/power/decision over their own physical person.

In fact, without this concept there no basic for any kind of ethics or morals other than the completely arbitrary decree of some unquestionable authority.

The very notion of "harm" rests upon the assumption that the person being "harmed" does like prefer and consent to the effects the action has upon them.

We can and should have ethics that are not merely based in arbitrary authority, thus we can and should recognize individual sovereignty, with the logically imposed internal limit being that if a person's actions infringe upon the sovereignty of another that this person losese their right to control their own actions (e.g., they go to jail).

What this means for social interactions is simply that they must be negotiated and consensual rather than enacted via force.


Where did you get any of that from the op?
 

PyramidHead

Contributor
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,080
Location
RI
Basic Beliefs
Marxist-Leninist
Is human dignity governed by the adherence to a regiment of morale standards or is it through respect for the sovereignty of an individuals existence?

I would argue that the question should be put in the other direction: are moral standards grounded in some kind of human dignity we all possess in varying degrees or in a radical lack of dignity that equalizes us as individuals?

There is not much about being human that dignifies us. A sober examination of what it means to be alive as a human is enough to reveal dignity as a stretch of the imagination. I don't have a duty to avoid harming you because you radiate some inherent dignity that acts as a repellent to deserving harm, I can't harm you because I have no more or less value than you; I have no grounds whatsoever to assert my interests as superior to yours in some way, since we are both worthless beings without dignity. We are morally untouchable to one another based on our shared value as humans, which is zero.

Moral theories that rise to prominence conceal this reality, and start from the unquestioned assumption that we are imbued with some kind of positive essence, some more than others as it often turns out, and this not only separates us from other living things but is why humans ought never to take their own lives, and should always try to leave behind progeny. I don't agree with either of these conclusions because I don't think the premise of human dignity has been established, and as such, suicide strikes me as no less moral than continuing to exist if all else is equal, and choosing to procreate strikes me as unconscionably cruel and manipulative.
 

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
This post is one big false dichotomy. The social nature of humans is in no way incompatible with the idea that each person should allowed ultimate authority/power/decision over their own physical person.

In fact, without this concept there no basic for any kind of ethics or morals other than the completely arbitrary decree of some unquestionable authority.

The very notion of "harm" rests upon the assumption that the person being "harmed" does like prefer and consent to the effects the action has upon them.

We can and should have ethics that are not merely based in arbitrary authority, thus we can and should recognize individual sovereignty, with the logically imposed internal limit being that if a person's actions infringe upon the sovereignty of another that this person losese their right to control their own actions (e.g., they go to jail).

What this means for social interactions is simply that they must be negotiated and consensual rather than enacted via force.


Where did you get any of that from the op?

The false dichotomy I responded to is in bilby's response, not your OP.
 

just_me

I am here!
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
302
Location
Texas
Basic Beliefs
Understanding
This post is one big false dichotomy. The social nature of humans is in no way incompatible with the idea that each person should allowed ultimate authority/power/decision over their own physical person.

In fact, without this concept there no basic for any kind of ethics or morals other than the completely arbitrary decree of some unquestionable authority.

The very notion of "harm" rests upon the assumption that the person being "harmed" does like prefer and consent to the effects the action has upon them.

We can and should have ethics that are not merely based in arbitrary authority, thus we can and should recognize individual sovereignty, with the logically imposed internal limit being that if a person's actions infringe upon the sovereignty of another that this person losese their right to control their own actions (e.g., they go to jail).

What this means for social interactions is simply that they must be negotiated and consensual rather than enacted via force.


Where did you get any of that from the op?

The false dichotomy I responded to is in bilby's response, not your OP.

My apologies. I stand corrected.
 

Torin

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
190
Location
USA
Is human dignity governed by the adherence to a regiment of morale standards or is it through respect for the sovereignty of an individuals existence?
What do you mean by "human dignity?"
 

just_me

I am here!
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
302
Location
Texas
Basic Beliefs
Understanding
Is human dignity governed by the adherence to a regiment of morale standards or is it through respect for the sovereignty of an individuals existence?
What do you mean by "human dignity?"

The sence of self worth and the worth you place on fellow human beings without prior knowledge of anything that would effect your opinion of that person as an individual.
 

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
The very notion of "harm" rests upon the assumption that the person being "harmed" does like, prefer and consent to the effects the action has upon them.

.

I just wanted to provide more rationale for this central assumption of my prior post. There are no objective physical consequences of any action that imply moral wrongness. If I punch you in the face, there are objective physical effects. But if you wanted me to do that then my action is perfectly moral, while if you did not want me to do that then the exact same objective physical results of my action become immoral. The entire moral determination lies in the concept of consent by the affected party which in turn lies in the concept of personal autonomy and "sovereignty" over one's physical person. If I don't recognize your sovereignty over your body, then your consent is irrelevant to what I do to your body, and then nothing I do can be immoral, unless morality is defined by whatever some third party decrees is allowed based upon the assumption that they are granted total authority (aka sovereignty) over all people.

So, either there is no morality (and thus no possibility of and organized society or civilization) or there is morality based upon one of two possible assumptions 1) each person has sovereignty over themselves, 2) some authority has sovereignty over all.
 

Torin

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
190
Location
USA
The sence of self worth and the worth you place on fellow human beings without prior knowledge of anything that would effect your opinion of that person as an individual.
Self worth is the moral component of self esteem, the part of your self esteem that evaluates whether you're a morally good person. (The other component of self esteem is self confidence, which is your evaluation of your ability to accomplish things.)

As far as other people, I think there's an obligation to grant people a degree of "default respect" prior to knowing anything about them in particular, because in my experience most people do have some degree of moral virtue. This can go up or down as you learn more about a person.

So I'd say that human dignity (as you have defined it) is based on a person's volitional adherence to morality.
 
Top Bottom