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?
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?
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?
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?
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)
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.
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?
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?
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.
What do you mean by "human dignity?"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?"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?
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.
.
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.)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.