1. INTRODUCTION
The concept of human dignity has been a critical element in bioethics and contemporary ethics and human rights instruments. The idea of human dignity has also been the subject of philosophical inquiry for centuries, where its origin can be traced back to Antiquity. Slade (2022) defines human dignity as the acknowledgment that people have a specific value that is intrinsic to their humanity and, as such, are worth being respected since they are human beings. Human dignity has no association with the gender, class, religion, race, or abilities of any human being.
Based on the fact that dignity defines how well we regard ourselves, it can be considered an essential element of human rights in that. According to Gilabert (2019), dignity aids in joining individuals who originate from different cultural backgrounds and beliefs. This has led to the universal recognition that we need to protect and realize that dignity of every individual is important. Human rights are congruent to human dignity in that to achieve one aspect; you must adhere to the other. Besides, the two are conjoined in that one cannot comprehend one part without involving the other parameter. It, therefore, implies that human dignity is the basic foundation of human rights (McCrudden, 2013).
This study aims at presenting and discussing the concept of human dignity understandings. How do the theories understand human dignity and reflect on possible implications they may have for the interpretations of human rights? Mainly this study focused on Kant’s and human rights concepts, the relevant human dignity concepts within the human rights framework.
2. THE CONCEPT OF HUMAN DIGNITY
Human dignity is a critical concept that is crucial in disclosing human rights. According to the ICESCR, all human rights are developed from inherent human dignity. Besides, the UDHR posits that recognizing human dignity is the basis of freedom worldwide. Various countries’ constitutions mention human dignity as a right to be protected alongside other human rights, while others include it as a fundamental non-delegable right. Multiple intellectuals, including lawyers, theologians, anthropologists, among other things, and philosophers, have discussed the concept of human dignity. This study examines the understanding of human dignity concepts from two perspectives; Kant’s concept and dignity as rights concept. These concepts help shed light on the concept’s meaning in human rights documents and disclosure.
2.1. Kant’s Concept of Human Dignity
Immanuel Kant asserts that dignity is within a human being and is not influenced by one’s behavior. Kant’s concept has been the most popular when thinking about human dignity and how it relates to theology, bioethics, and human rights.
Kant’s concept of human dignity argues that each person is an end of themselves and should never be treated as a means but deserve respect (Dowell et al., 2014). This is the main idea from the Moral Metaphysics ground, which differentiates Kant’s theory from other theories and summarizes his view on human dignity. This concept but a human being in the center of the earth’s existence, thus introducing an egalitarian perspective of human dignity as the greatest good for the most significant number of Human beings. This means that every person is of equal worth principle and is subjected to equal human dignity, regardless of individual behavior.
Kant argues that every human has inherent worth that should not be violated (Johnson & Adam, 2004). He distinguished two values by stating that matters can be exchanged between people (moral values) and others based on the market price (rational agents). Humans can be autonomous because they can do anything based on their interpretation of the moral code. In other words, people are free to determine their course of action as they are not bound to any external authority. According to Uleman (2010), Kant indicated that moral value is unconditional, incomparable, and cannot be estimated using market pricing, similar to human dignity.
Human dignity is within a person and can be perceived as a value attributed to every person as unconditional. According to Kateb (2011), dignity cannot be made a subject to something else as it resides in every person. Every person wants to be treated like a human being and consider their dignity violated when they are not treated as a unique human being. Therefore, human dignity strongly relates to describing a person as a great human being, and these characteristics must be respected. Statistically, individuals tend to strip off their families when treated as means.
According to Kant, human dignity is congruent with the ability to form self-given laws. Kateb (2011) argues that putting human beings on the central point of all species on earth indicates that they can make laws and act accordingly. This defines the uniqueness of human beings from other species. Johnson and Cureton (2004) supported this by indicating that a human being discovers moral law through reasoning. Because this law is not imposed from the outside, they are obligated to act accordingly as rational beings.
Additionally, Kant connects respect with human dignity. According to Rosen (2012), respect is gleaned from law giving nature of dignity. This can be described as something inherent to every human as status acknowledgment. Therefore, the notion is that human beings are autonomous and capable of developing moral laws and acting accordingly. This exhibits respect for one’s dignity. However, it is insufficient to explain human behavior based on the description of dignity. With this in mind, Kant, in his conceptualization of human dignity, added categorical imperative as humans are autonomous and capable of imposing morality or laws upon themselves (Sensen, 2012).
Based on the questions of how humans should behave, Kant introduced the notion that a person should behave so that their behavior can become a universal law. This describes human dignity as an inalienable attribute (Uleman, 2010). It also defines that dignity obtains relevance by associating it with people’s behavior toward the categorical imperative. In this case, dignity is considered rational and self-reflecting, essential to establishing workplace dignity theory. Rosen (2012), in his review of dignity conceptualization through history, supported this by concluding that dignity obtains relevance by focusing on its duties. This also provides a ground in which we can examine the meaning of human dignity based on the concept of Kant.
Bayefsky (2013), based on the moral theory, argued that duties could direct human actions through their implications resulting from inherent dignity. Kant described the respectful and worthy norm of respect as the crucial duty towards oneself. To act on this, people capable of morality and dignity carry their duties resulting from personhood, independence, and the freedom to make law for oneself (Arntzen, 1995). This contrast with the fundamental views of dignity based on rights, which have been dominant throughout the 20th century.
Kant’s concept of dignity is significant because;
First, it describes the significance of people’s freedom. Kant’s perspectives on human dignity do not place more emphasis on conformity and acting accordingly to the rules like other ethical systems (Steinmann, 2016). From this concept, humans must be free to make laws and follow them accordingly. Besides, they have the freedom to decide what, when, and how to do it.
Second, Kant’s perspectives on human dignity are of great importance in giving as it sufficiently describes the importance of both autonomy and dignity (Fasoro, 2019). Kant’s concept is based on the idea that humans are free to determine the course of their actions as each person is an end in themselves. This concept is unique from other human dignity concepts as it emphasizes the intrinsic value of every human being.
Third, Kant’s concept relates to social sensitivity in understanding human dignity (Kant, 2003). The modern shift of honor to dignity can be considered as solitary-self, deemed an inalienable human right and the bearer of human dignity. Bayefsky (2013), in his study on dignity, honor, and human rights, indicated that Kant’s perspective is often considered in a modern transition from systems based on honor; socio-political systems to those based on dignity. In human dignity-based systems, dignity is considered inherent and equal worth of every human, while honor is considered a measure of social value. In his argument Bayefsky (2013), he supported that Kant doesn’t reject honor in favor of dignity and relates honor to a conducive element for dignity. According to Kant, at least one influential concept of dignity in the human rights review is not based solitary self’s picture.
Forth, contrary, Sandel’s human dignity perspective indicated that dignity is only instrumental as a business asset but not for bearing self-reputation (Hill, 2019; Pirson et al., 2016). Kant argues that human dignity ought to uphold as a matter of honor. This signifies that a person can genuinely value a certain aspect of social acknowledgment and simultaneously conceive self-worth independent of social position (Arntzen, 1995). Therefore, in the human rights context, dignity can be geared toward protecting inviolated individuals and the emergence of the social world. Most people seek honor from others by protecting their rights to earn themselves honor. This argument can inform efforts to understand human dignity as a human right and a particular kind of respectful social life. This supports a concern with economic and social dignity to allow people to participate in harmony with others in society. Besides, it suggests that cultural traditions in society should protect human rights.
2.2. Human dignity in Human Rights Concept
People’s contemporary language is the major of human dignity, which is deemed a human right, and every human should get it for free. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 1 is the first article among the few that acknowledge legal frameworks and should not be ignored for the global civilization notion.
Gewirth (2019), in his review of human dignity as the basis of rights, argued that dignity deserves comprehensive research to establish its possible use across the world and its precise meaning. Based on the fact that there is no description of dignity and its association with human rights, various researcher has studied further to identify the actual meaning of human dignity and its relevance to intrinsic human rights such as the right to association and education (McCrudden, 2013). Waldron et al. (2012), in their study on dignity, rank, and rights, argued that dignity has come to mean differently to different humans.
Dignity in the concept of rights of people has been concerning that every person across the world has equal fundamental rights. While this perspective is evident in Kant’s concept of human dignity, it is still unclear how this should be understood and applied more practically. Rosen (2012) criticized the legal use of dignity by stating that it negatively affects the status and dignity description. Hence, the unclear meaning of dignity makes it only rely on jurisprudence and cannot guide a legal framework.
According to Killmister (2020), there is still a potential question on the violation of dignity and legal action on the violation of dignity despite a clear description of what violation of dignity means. One of these questions focuses on the relevance of dignity introduction on top of human rights; can human dignity enact a legal sphere except for a new law complement terms? The second question is whether people can understand dignity from a legal point of view, considering the tension between the violation of dignity, which is not directly enforceable, but within human discretion, and autonomy, which states that every person should behave freely in the manner they wish.
Various studies have represented cases in which humans may not establish the dignity violation occurrence. According to Rosen (2012), the violation of human dignity from the perception that a person is not treated as a unique person or instrumental. In this case, it is difficult to describe the felt pain, whether emotional or physical. Therefore, similar to human rights, dignity violation results in pain. However, pain does not signify a dignity violation, just like a human right violation. Understanding human dignity from a human rights perspective, insulting and humiliating a person may lead to painful experiences (Beitz, 2013). Humiliating and insulting a person may exemplify humanity in interactions. However, it may be noticed when humiliating or insulting individuals given their inability to others with necessary dignity.
Although interpreting human dignity as a human right can be done if various ways, this study used human dignity in three contexts, first in the context of workplace theory. Human dignity in the context of working is important as people are forced to work in poor conditions to survive. Besides, people may participate in activities where they are not treated as a means but as an instrument. Since a job is only instrumental for an organization to make financial gains and for employees to earn some money for living, work may be instrumental for most people. Sometimes the job may come in job circumstances when an employee gets humiliated.
According to McCrudden (2008), putting dignity in a framework may, at some point, look impossible. According to him, dignity violation may lead to the application of the law, and someone can be prosecuted and jailed. This implies that the violators’ maintenance of law and prosecution is essential in protecting human dignity, similar to human rights. Although human rights declaration allows it to be limited by legal frameworks, human dignity violators do not present the opportunity to do so. Bal (2017) asserts that human dignity results from the intervening force necessary in defining reality. Thus, human dignity neglects the mutual relationship with reality as it is wholly defined in terms of the law.
In the postulation of workplace dignity theory, it is crucial to participate in the dignity and free choice of every person and their responsibility. Although human dignity may be used to extensively interpret and defend rights, we cannot assume that the existence of dignity resides only in a legal framework. According to Mattson and Clark (2011), this may develop a conflict between what is at the discretion of society, such as degradation and humiliation, and what should be legally enforced, such as the prevention of human torture and rape.
This second context is spiritual theory. The spiritual concept of human dignity addresses the perspectives of Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism. It is believed that every religion identifies the equality of humans. Even if human equality is not emphasized in practice, in the spiritual perspectives, setups, and teachings, it is one of the fundamental elements shared among most religions. For example, most Christian teachings believe that every person has dignity since they are created in God’s image and likeness. This belief is also common in the Judaism teachings and Islam religions. According to Muzaffar (2014), human dignity is obtained from humanity’s shared nature. This helps in describing every individual’s accrued potential for a state of awakening anchored on wisdom and compassion (Andorno, 2014; Kyle, 2017).
From the Christian perspective, the special dignity of dignity for all human beings is expressed vividly based on the Christians’ spiritual souls. Christians often argue that the intrinsic worth of every person is a consequence of all human beings as an “image of God” (Genesis. 1: 26). The belief that Jesus Christ came and died on the cross so that every human being may be saved of the past atrocities and a new pathway to be with the maker, God, established. However, Kyle (2021) asserts that these theological explanations of the worthiness of human beings presume that the definitive principle within every people is spiritual and not merely corporeal. Therefore, the philosophical assumptions about dignity are clearly stated in the thinking of theologians, who have often argued that the likeness that human beings attribute to God is and ought to exist mainly at the soul level and not at the body level. This is because God is regarded as a purely spiritual being. This contradicts the belief of Christians that every individual possesses an integrated bodily and spiritual nature. In this respect, it, therefore, means that even though the soul is regarded as the core of every person, it is naturally related to the body, which therein makes it a substantial unit of every living individual (Andorno, 2014).
The third context is based on inherent theory. This concept of human dignity has played a significant role in the existing culture because it has been the basis for theories of human rights by describing why humans have rights to be with (Andorno, 2014). In this concept, human dignity and rights are related in that every person has an innate value (dignity) and enjoys certain rights that spur human flourishing and protect their existence. According to Gewirth (2019), however, this concept brings a host of philosophical difficulties the disagreement about how exactly human dignity can be defined.
It also describes the values of human beings but omits a description of how humans should understand the content of human values and how they should function when used. Recently, this idea has been criticized for disregarding the intrinsic value of other species in the world. Besides, the idea has increasingly become ubiquitous in modern political, legal, and moral disclosure.
According to Kretzmer and Klein (2002), the inherent concept of human theory asserts that the virtue of being a human comes with a special value that belongs to humans. This brings a worth intrinsic to human beings because of the different qualities that belong to human nature, such as;
- Values apprehensive ability and freedom of choosing or affirming them or bring them into being;
- The ability to question and understand the distinctively human manner of consciously seeking and gaining intelligibility insights and approving the truth of the insight
- Vulnerability to suffering and the disruptions of human functioning
- The creativity-based powers emanating from understanding are united with freedom and imagination.
- Self-transcending love capacity
However, the question remains whether all the above characteristics belong to a human or they are unique to a human being. Embracing this concept of human dignity may be attributed to the following facts;
First, human dignity is within a person and, therefore, will be present whether or not it is recognized by the person to whom it belongs or by other people. Besides, inherent dignity is a given and remains given under all circumstances (Kretzmer & Klein, 2002).
Second, by stating that every human has inherent dignity, it means that neither the transience of worldly conditions nor the differences among worldly situations can influence or affect its truth or its status. Gewirth (2019) asserts that human dignity must be a given and a constant and have its ground in a dimension of unalterable meaning.
Third, the concept also sets moral requirements because Kant contrasts human dignity with price (Gewirth, 2019). If dignity has price value, it can be replaced or substituted for by something else with similar value. According to Thomas Hobbes, value signifies a worth relative to a person’s desires or opinions. Therefore, Hobbes defines human dignity as a public worth of a man. In contrast, it is impossible to exchange inherent dignity under any circumstances and is not relative to the opinions or desires of a person. Although having human rights is congruent with having dignity, we should reject, based on our desires and opinions, that having dignity is equivalent to having rights. This means that dignity means nothing if it does not signify the virtue of respecting human rights (Gewirth, 2019). However, despite this view indicating the relationship between human dignity and human rights, it does not show dignity as the antecedent, and human rights justificatory ground, as against being their consequents or equivalents. It is not always that having dignity serves to buttress empirical rights or, where there is human dignity, have human rights (Sensen, 2011). Even if this could be true, the primary association between dignity and rights is that humans have rights because they have inherent dignity.
3. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE CONCEPTS
The study has tried to understand the concept of human dignity in Kant and human rights, using workplace, spiritual, and inherent theories. Kant’s perspective understands human dignity as does not place more emphasis on conformity and acting accordingly to the rules like other ethical systems. This signifies that humans are free to make laws and follow them accordingly and have the freedom to decide what, when, and how to do it (Kant, 2003). Kant also understands human dignity in the intrinsic value of every human being angle by indicating that human beings are free to determine the course of their action as each person is an end of in themselves. Besides, Kant relates the social sensitivity in understanding human dignity, indicating the modern shift of honor to dignity, which can be considered the solitary self, inalienable human rights, and the bearer of human dignity (Arntzen, 1995).
On the other hand, human dignity as a human right understands it as a human right, and its violation should involve legal actions. The violation of human dignity indicates that a person is not treated as a unique person or instrumental (Rosen, 2012). This concept, however, faces various critics and answers a question on the relevance of dignity introduction and violation of dignity
In the context of workplace theory, human dignity helps workers to survive in degrading circumstances (Bal (2017) and Mattson and Clark (2011). Mostly, human dignity is determined by the individual’s position at work. In this context, the maintenance of law and prosecution of the violators are important in protecting human dignity. However, although human dignity is a different situation and is used to extensively interpret and defend universal human rights, it is insufficient to assume the existence of dignity as residing only in a legal framework.
In a spiritual context, human dignity is a fundamental element shared among most religions. Human dignity is obtained from humanity’s shared nature, in that the intrinsic worth of every person is a consequence of all human beings as an “image of God.” This means that the philosophical assumptions about dignity are clearly stated in the thinking of theologians, which contradicts the belief of Christians (Andorno, 2014).
Based on inherent theory, human dignity and rights are related in that every person has an innate value (dignity) and enjoys certain rights that spur human flourishing and protect their existence (Gewirth, 2019). This concept, however, brings with it a host of philosophical difficulties, the disagreement about how exactly human dignity can be defined.
4. CONCLUSION
Human dignity has been the subject of various philosophical inquiries in the last centuries. Various prior studies emphasized the rational capacities of human characteristics that make them unique among the living species in the world. Currently, human dignity is described as a universal legal and ethical principle insisting that every person has inalienable rights and intrinsic worthiness by being a human. Based on the above human dignity concepts literature, I vividly support Kant’s understanding of human dignity because, unlike another concept of human dignity, Kant understands human dignity as a matter of honor. Indicating that a person can genuinely value a certain aspect of social acknowledgment and, at the same time, conceive self-worth as independent of social position. Kant doesn’t reject honor in favor of dignity and relates honor to a conducive element for dignity. Kant’s understanding is based on cultural traditions in society, thus, flexible with the changing world.
References
Andorno, R. (2014). Human dignity and human rights. Handbook of global bioethics, 45(45–46).
Arntzen, S. (1995). Kant’s denial of absolute sovereignty. Pacific philosophical quarterly, 76(1), 1-16.
Bayefsky, R. (2013). Dignity, honor, and human rights: Kant’s perspective. Political Theory, 41(6), 809–837.
Beitz, C. R. (2013). Human dignity in the theory of human rights: Nothing but a phrase? Philosophy & Public Affairs, 41(3), 259-290.
Fasoro, S. A. (2019). True dignity and ‘respect-worthiness. Human Affairs, 29(2), 207-223.
Gewirth, A. (2019). 1. Human Dignity as the Rights Basis. In The Constitution of Rights (pp. 10–28). Cornell University Press.
Gilbert, P. (2019). Human dignity and human rights. Oxford University Press, USA.
Hill, T. E. (2019). Dignity and practical reason in Kant’s moral theory. In Dignity and Practical Reason in Kant’s Moral Theory. Cornell University Press.
Johnson, R., & Cureton, A. (2004). Kant’s moral philosophy.
Johnson, Robert, and Adam Cureton. “Kant’s moral philosophy.” (2004).
Kant, I. (2003). Theoretical Philosophy, 1755–1770. Cambridge University Press.
Killmister, S. (2020). Contours of Dignity. Oxford University Press, USA.
Kretzmer, D., & Klein, E. (Eds.). (2002). The concept of human dignity in human rights discourse (pp. 201-237). The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Kyle, J. W. (2021). An Exploration of Human Dignity as a Foundation for Spiritual Leadership. University of Derby (United Kingdom).
Kyle, J. W., Wong, T., & Carlier, J. (2017, October). Human dignity, higher-order needs, and spiritual leadership theory. In 9th ILA Global Conference, Brussels, Belgium.
Mattson, D. J., & Clark, S. G. (2011). Human dignity in concept and practice. Policy Sciences, 44(4), 303-319.
McCrudden, C. (2008). Human dignity and judicial interpretation of human rights. European Journal of International Law, 19(4), 655-724.
McCrudden, C. (2013). Understanding human dignity.
Muzaffar, C. (2014). Rights, Religion, and Reform: Enhancing human dignity through spiritual and moral transformation. Routledge.
Pirson, M., Goodpaster, K., & Dierksmeier, C. (2016). Guest editors’ introduction: Human dignity and business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(4), 465-478.
Rosen, M. (2012). Dignity. In Dignity. Harvard University Press.
Rosen, M. (2012). Dignity: Its history and meaning. Harvard University Press.
Sensen, O. (2011). Kant on human dignity. In Kant’s on Human Dignity. De Gruyter.
Sensen, O. (Ed.). (2012). Kant on moral autonomy. Cambridge University Press.
Steinmann, R. (2016). The core meaning of human dignity. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal (PELJ), 19(1), 1-32.
Uleman, J. K. (2010). An introduction to Kant’s moral philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Uleman, J. K. (2010). An introduction to Kant’s moral philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Waldron, J., Dimock, W. C., Herzog, D., & Rosen, M. (2012). Dignity, rank, and rights. Oxford University Press on Demand.
write