Human Rights Careers

What is Human Dignity? Common Definitions.

You’ll hear the term “human dignity” a lot these days. Human dignity is at the heart of human rights. What is human dignity exactly? What’s the history of this concept and why does it matter? In this article, we’ll discuss the history of the term, its meaning, and its place in both a human rights framework and a religious framework.

What is human dignity?

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.

The term “dignity” has evolved over the years. Originally, the Latin, English, and French words for “dignity” did not have anything to do with a person’s inherent value. It aligned much closer with someone’s “merit.” If someone was “dignified,” it meant they had a high status. They belonged to royalty or the church, or, at the very least, they had money. For this reason, “human dignity” does not appear in the US Declaration of Independence or the Constitution . The phrase as we understand it today wasn’t recognized until 1948. The United Nations ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights .

Human dignity: the human rights framework

The original meaning of the word “dignity” established that someone deserved respect because of their status. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that concept was turned on its head. Article 1 states: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Suddenly, dignity wasn’t something that people earned because of their class, race, or another advantage. It is something all humans are born with. Simply by being human, all people deserve respect. Human rights naturally spring from that dignity.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , adopted in 1966, continued this understanding. The preamble reads that “…these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person.” This belief goes hand in hand with the universality of human rights. In the past, only people made dignified by their status were given respect and rights. By redefining dignity as something inherent to everyone, it also establishes universal rights.

Human dignity: the religious framework

The concept of human dignity isn’t limited to human rights. In fact, for centuries, religions around the world have recognized a form of human dignity as we now understand it. Most (if not all) religions teach that humans are essentially equal for one reason or another. In Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, it’s because humans were created in the image of God, becoming children of God. Dignity is something that a divine being gives to people. In Catholic social teaching, the phrase “Human Dignity” is used specifically to support the church’s belief that every human life is sacred. This defines the denomination’s dedication to social issues like ending the death penalty.

In Hinduism and Buddhism, respectively, dignity is inherent because humans are manifestations of the Divine or on a universal journey to happiness. In the Shvetasvatara Upanishad, an ancient Sanskrit text, it reads “We are all begotten of the immortal,” or “We are children of immortality.” Buddhism begins with the understanding that humans are “rare” because they can make choices that lead to enlightenment. Our dignity arises from this responsibility and ability, uniting all humans in their quest.

When everyone is equal, they are all equally deserving of basic respect and rights, at least in theory. Countless people have had their dignity disrespected over the years by religious institutions and others using religion as justification.

Why recognizing human dignity is so important

Why is human dignity so important when it comes to human rights? Human dignity justifies human rights. When people are divided and given a value based on characteristics like class, gender, religion, and so on, it creates unequal societies where discrimination runs rampant. People assigned a higher value get preferential treatment. Anyone who doesn’t fit into the privileged category is abandoned or oppressed. We’ve seen what happens in places where human dignity isn’t seen as inherent and human rights aren’t universal. While the privileged few in these societies flourish, society as a whole suffers significantly. Inevitably, violence erupts. If a new group takes power and also fails to recognize human dignity, the cycle of destruction continues, only with different participants.

Recognizing human dignity and the universality of human rights isn’t just so individuals can be protected and respected. It’s for the good of the entire world. If everyone’s rights were respected and everyone got equal opportunities to thrive, the world would be a much happier, more peaceful place.

Learn more how you can defend and protect human dignity in a free online course .

You may also like

human dignity reflection essay

11 Examples of Systemic Injustices in the US

human dignity reflection essay

Women’s Rights 101: History, Examples, Activists

human dignity reflection essay

What is Social Activism?

human dignity reflection essay

15 Inspiring Movies about Activism

human dignity reflection essay

15 Examples of Civil Disobedience

human dignity reflection essay

Academia in Times of Genocide: Why are Students Across the World Protesting?

human dignity reflection essay

Pinkwashing 101: Definition, History, Examples

human dignity reflection essay

15 Inspiring Quotes for Black History Month

human dignity reflection essay

10 Inspiring Ways Women Are Fighting for Equality

human dignity reflection essay

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Clean Water

human dignity reflection essay

15 Trusted Charities Supporting Trans People

human dignity reflection essay

15 Political Issues We Must Address

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

  • Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

  • Browse content in Arts and Humanities
  • Browse content in Archaeology
  • Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
  • Biblical Archaeology
  • Environmental Archaeology
  • Historical Archaeology
  • Landscape Archaeology
  • Prehistoric Archaeology
  • Browse content in Art
  • History of Art
  • Browse content in Classical Studies
  • Classical History
  • Classical Literature
  • Greek and Roman Epigraphy
  • Greek and Roman Archaeology
  • Late Antiquity
  • Religion in the Ancient World
  • Browse content in History
  • Colonialism and Imperialism
  • Diplomatic History
  • Historical Geography
  • History by Period
  • History of Gender and Sexuality
  • Intellectual History
  • Legal and Constitutional History
  • Local and Family History
  • Military History
  • Political History
  • Regional and National History
  • Revolutions and Rebellions
  • Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
  • Social and Cultural History
  • Theory, Methods, and Historiography
  • World History
  • Language Teaching and Learning
  • Browse content in Linguistics
  • Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
  • Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
  • Language Variation
  • Language Families
  • Language Reference
  • Linguistic Theories
  • Linguistic Typology
  • Linguistic Anthropology
  • Sociolinguistics
  • Translation and Interpretation
  • Browse content in Literature
  • Literary Studies (European)
  • Literary Studies - World
  • Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
  • Literary Studies (19th Century)
  • Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
  • Literary Studies (British and Irish)
  • Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
  • Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
  • Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
  • Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
  • Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
  • Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
  • Mythology and Folklore
  • Browse content in Media Studies
  • Browse content in Music
  • Ethnomusicology
  • Music Cultures
  • Music and Culture
  • Music Theory and Analysis
  • Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
  • Musicology and Music History
  • Browse content in Philosophy
  • History of Western Philosophy
  • Metaphysics
  • Moral Philosophy
  • Philosophy of Science
  • Philosophy of Law
  • Philosophy of Religion
  • Philosophy of Mind
  • Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
  • Social and Political Philosophy
  • Browse content in Religion
  • Biblical Studies
  • Christianity
  • History of Religion
  • Religion and Education
  • Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
  • Religious Studies
  • Browse content in Society and Culture
  • Cultural Studies
  • Browse content in Law
  • Constitutional and Administrative Law
  • Criminal Law
  • Environment and Energy Law
  • History of Law
  • Human Rights and Immigration
  • Browse content in International Law
  • Public International Law
  • Legal System and Practice
  • Browse content in Science and Mathematics
  • Browse content in Psychology
  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Evolutionary Psychology
  • Social Psychology
  • Browse content in Social Sciences
  • Browse content in Anthropology
  • Regional Anthropology
  • Social and Cultural Anthropology
  • Criminology and Criminal Justice
  • Browse content in Economics
  • Economic History
  • Economic Development and Growth
  • Labour and Demographic Economics
  • Browse content in Education
  • Educational Strategies and Policy
  • Browse content in Human Geography
  • Political Geography
  • Browse content in Politics
  • Comparative Politics
  • Conflict Politics
  • Environmental Politics
  • International Relations
  • Political Philosophy
  • Political Sociology
  • Political Theory
  • Political Economy
  • UK Politics
  • Browse content in Sociology
  • Health, Illness, and Medicine
  • Migration Studies
  • Occupations, Professions, and Work
  • Organizations
  • Population and Demography
  • Race and Ethnicity
  • Social Movements and Social Change
  • Social Research and Statistics
  • Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
  • Sociology of Education
  • Urban and Rural Studies
  • Journals on Oxford Academic
  • Books on Oxford Academic

Understanding Human Dignity

  • < Previous chapter
  • Next chapter >

Understanding Human Dignity

36 Human Rights, Human Dignity,and Human Experience

  • Published: November 2013
  • Cite Icon Cite
  • Permissions Icon Permissions

The contested understandings of human dignity today make it very problematic as a reliable principle for determining the scope and merit of particular claims of human rights (at least beyond the principle’s narrow, universally agreed-upon core meaning). Merely relying on an overlapping consensus is insufficient. Nevertheless, the beginnings of a broader shared understanding of the meaning and implications of human dignity, as a foundational principle of human rights law, can emerge from our concrete experience. As a common point of reference for critically evaluating and integrating the diversity of instantiations of human rights in differing legal traditions, the elementary experience of human dignity leads us to regard law as a vehicle for sustained and reasoned reflection on the value of human persons and on the scope of our obligations to respect and protect them.

Personal account

  • Sign in with email/username & password
  • Get email alerts
  • Save searches
  • Purchase content
  • Activate your purchase/trial code
  • Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

  • Sign in with username/password
  • Recommend to your librarian
  • Institutional account management
  • Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

  • Click Sign in through your institution.
  • Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
  • When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
  • Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

  • Click Sign in through society site.
  • When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

  • View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
  • View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

Month: Total Views:
October 2022 5
November 2022 10
December 2022 2
January 2023 4
February 2023 13
March 2023 6
April 2023 2
May 2023 7
June 2023 4
July 2023 4
August 2023 3
September 2023 4
October 2023 4
November 2023 5
December 2023 12
January 2024 10
February 2024 3
March 2024 1
April 2024 1
May 2024 1
June 2024 3
July 2024 2
  • About Oxford Academic
  • Publish journals with us
  • University press partners
  • What we publish
  • New features  
  • Open access
  • Rights and permissions
  • Accessibility
  • Advertising
  • Media enquiries
  • Oxford University Press
  • Oxford Languages
  • University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

  • Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
  • Cookie settings
  • Cookie policy
  • Privacy policy
  • Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Christian Scholar’s Review

Human Dignity and the Image of God—A Review Essay

human dignity reflection essay

Imago Dei: Human Dignity in Ecumenical Perspective

human dignity reflection essay

Image, Identity, and the Forming of the Augustinian Soul

human dignity reflection essay

Stricken by Sin, Cured by Christ: Agency, Necessity, and Culpability in Augustinian Theology

human dignity reflection essay

A Philosophical Anthropology of the Cross: The Cruciform Self

human dignity reflection essay

God, Freedom, and Human Dignity: Embracing a God-Centered Identity in a Me-Centered Culture

John W. Wright is Professor of Theology and Christian Scripture at Point Loma Nazarene University.

Introduction

We live in a world assembled to overcome the instabilities arising out of World War II. The dominant post-War narrative has understood the “Good War” as an ideological battle between democracy and totalitarianism. 1 In the West, the narrative expanded to enfold the Cold War. The language of human dignity, freedom, and human rights emerged in the West to bind societies to a moderate liberalism to stand opposed to “fascism” and “communism” – now linked as one thing named “totalitarianism.” In the United States, post-War liberal elite enjoined mainline Protestant thinkers to re-forge an “American Enlightenment.” 2 Theologically liberal Protestant denominations proclaimed a gospel of human dignity, rights, freedom, and autonomy. The elite invited mainline Protestant intellectuals to support the American liberal democratic regime against the totalitarian threats of fascism, fundamentalism, and Catholicism from within and communism from without. 3 The Protestant elite correlated the Christian language of the image of God to the liberal language of a human freedom, dignity, and rights to strengthen the unity of the United States that the secular elite feared could fragment.

The pragmatic liberals that bought mainline Protestant influence undercut mainline Protestantism’s long-term ecclesial institutional vitality. We live within the resultant intellectual, institutional, and political void. As Joseph Bottum has argued:

We cannot explore the moral, social, and intellectual culture of any moment in American history without recognizing the central role played by Protestant Christianity—especially, in our time, the impact of the catastrophic decline of the Mainline Protestant churches that had once been central institutions in public life. 4

Scientism, evolutionary theory, bio-technology, post-humanist atheism, anti-realistic pragmatism, preventative war and terrorism, and neo-liberal capitalism have strained the very language of human nature and dignity that supported the development of the language of human nature, dignity, and rights in the West during the Cold War era.

Perhaps we should receive these five books as part of a twofold intervention: to renew a moderate liberal “Christian” conceptual core of “human dignity” and “freedom” in order to restore a theological humanism for the United States; and to retrieve the historic Christian teaching of God’s creation of humans to the image of God in response to the intellectual challenges of post-humanism.

For God and/or Country: The Image of God and/or Human Dignity

Thomas Howard places his edited volume, Imago Dei: Human Dignity in an Ecumenical Perspective within a Cold War context: “The years following World War II witnessed much discussion about and reflection on the idea of human dignity” (1). Three essays and a response address “human dignity” from within the Eastern Orthodox (John Behr), Roman Catholic (F. Russell Hittinger), and American evangelical Protestant (C. Ben Mitchell) traditions. Howard assigned the essays to explore two deeper ends: to see the ecumenical potential of such a question for Christian unity, and “to address how their tradition encourages (or might discourage?) an inviting and compelling public language about the scope and meaning of human dignity” (7; italics in original). The word “public” works to form “an extra-political, secular, meta-topical space.” 5 In other words, the book asks if various branches of the Christian tradition might provide a political and legal basis for “human dignity” within a secular liberal democratic society that has already disqualified particular theological language from its discourse.

As the respondent Gilbert Meilander noticed, the experiment produced largely negative results. All respondents shifted the language from “human dignity” to “the image of God.” This disappointed Meilander who expresses his regret in the Kantian language of moral obligation: “We owe each other, our fellow citizens, an honest articulation of the considerations that move us to think as we do” (119). The political subtext of the issue emerges: Notice how the “we” are “fellow citizens” of the United States, not the “terrorists” water boarded by governmental agencies or migrant children trying to escape war and poverty in other lands.

Perhaps, however, the reticence of the three major essays to translate the biblical language of “image of God” into secular language recognizes that an appeal to the public already has rigged the discourse. The essays by Behr and Hittinger certainly contest the philosophical anthropology that one finds emerging out of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke. Behr returns to the early church’s explication of the image of God to adopt a profoundly Christological and eschatological approach to the human: “The truth of the human being is [found] … in the future stature to which we are called, the stature of humanity that Christ alone has manifested in this world” (31). For Behr, the problem of the Western world is not “that a post-Christian world will be posthuman, but it may well lose its aspirations to become human” (37). 6

Hittinger probes a recent strand in Catholic social teaching that resists the reduction of the image of God to the dignity of the autonomous and free individual. Recent Catholic social teaching on the image of God protects individuals and groups from the state. Hittinger argues, “In its deepest pattern, Catholic social doctrine was a defense of the individual in society, but chiefly a defense of societies against the state’s ambition to exercise a monopoly on fraternity” (41; italics in original). Thus Hittinger argues, “An adequate anthropology must include, without confusion or reduction, the two memberships – the individual as human person, and as a member of social orders. Both are manifest in the economies of creation and redemption” (77).

Behr’s Christological and Hittinger’s ecclesiological concerns disappear in Mitchell’s Baptist essay. Mitchell bases his “creational anthropology” (109) on the biblical account of God creating humans according to the image of God (Genesis 1). The Bible thus provides a foundational, universal anthropology of the individual human that connects “to the broader intellectual patrimony of the West” (109). Mitchell seeks both to de-Christianize the “image of God” through a concept of human rights and dignity and simultaneously to re-sacralize it as “the Western genesis of human dignity presumes an abiding value vested in human beings by a loving Creator” (111). One senses another attempt to provide a secular theological basis to shore up the eroding philosophical and political dissolution of the Cold War consensus. Now, however, Mitchell’s American evangelical biblicism replaces the 1950s mainline American Protestants’ attempts to support American liberal democracy amid forces of its own intellectual, economic, and political implosion. 7 Meilander correctly suspects “Mitchell’s specifically biblical language … may have the greatest public purchase” (120).

Of the essays, it seems to me that Behr’s response, though disqualified from the public sphere, nonetheless has deep scriptural, historical, and philosophical warrant. Behr describes a human “nature” that is neither an essentialized modernist “thing” nor a postmodern, deconstructed “no thing.” Both the modernist self and its postmodern annulment of the self may result in the arbitrary exclusion of some human beings from the category of “the human.” The modernist excises those who do not fit their pre-existing criteria of autonomous, rational, free individuals. For postmodernists, no category “human” exists outside the pragmatic constrains of social conventions – different constellations of power can and do always and everywhere re-draw what is human. Behr places human nature and dignity outside an autonomous self in our eternal end, seen in the resurrection of Jesus. No one can take it from us: we participate in our own dignity through our creation by the eternal Word, the image of God. Nor can we say our self is something that we possess: human dignity still stands ahead of us to ever deepening or decreasing participation. We receive human nature as a gift from God, not from the state – both our own and others. Neither modern, nor postmodern, we find our human dignity “in between.”

Augustine: The Image of God and the Human Between

Augustine has stood as hero or villain as the source for modern anthropology and theology. Careful historical scholarship has eroded the caricature behind this adoration/scorn. 8 Matthew Drever continues to dissolve such a caricature of Augustine and the modern self. He delves into Augustine’s understanding on the nature, formation, and end of the human soul in his revised University of Chicago dissertation, Image, Identity, and the Forming of the Augustinian Soul . Drever produces a wonderfully nuanced, delicate piece of historical-theological scholarship.

Drever provides a careful reading of the mature Augustinian text to engage “contemporary theological and philosophical problems associated with post-Enlightenment conceptions of the human being and critiques of religion” (1). Augustine appears as a non-modern, deeply Christological and Platonic thinker. Drever shows how, for Augustine, the human being lives in between the nothing of its creation and the fullness of the image of God in the eternal Son made human in Jesus Christ. 9

Drever focuses his explication of Augustine on De Genesi ad litteram and De Trinitate . All creation exists inscribed by its Christological form. All creation bears the imprint of the personal, eternal Word through Whom all things were created. The creature then lives as a response to God’s call to participate in its own nature as given by and in the Word. Humans, however, bear a special intimacy to the Triune God as God creates us to the image of God. For Augustine,

The image of God is not some “thing,” part, or faculty imprinted onto an already existing soul; rather, it characterizes how the soul forms its basic identity out of its existence…. The soul exists in a type of reflective immediacy in which its identity is given to it from that which the soul is not (i.e., God). This leads to the paradoxical conclusion that the soul becomes most itself when it is least its own. (24)

The stability of the soul is outside itself in the immutable Triune God through the Word. Yet the soul simultaneously becomes itself in its historical existence through its own embodied experience. Sin enters if the soul turns to creation from itself as it is in God. One cannot reduce human beings to their material existence; nonetheless the body lives “as part of the human person’s unique status within God’s creation” (33). The human does not “have” a relationship with God as if between two “things” – one the soul; the other, God. The human being is “primordially relational. … The imago dei is a being-with, a being-toward, a being always accompanied by another” (39, 40).

Augustine ensures “the between” nature of the human through radicalizing the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo to creatio de nihilo – God creates humans not merely “out of” nothing, but also “from” nothing. Augustine names the distinction between God and creation as the difference between the simplicity and immutability of God and the mutability of creation. Augustine qualifies the use of the word “substance” to describe God for it implies the possibility of change. Creation, then, has substance, not to mark an unchanging essence, but to show its mutability arising from its origin “from nothing”: “ De nihilo does not offer a positive account of origin at a substantive level, and it cannot without falling into contradiction and dualism” (70-71). For Augustine, humans develop historically because of their substance: “Human substantia takes on the fragile, malleable, and dynamic character Augustine associates with the ex ( de ) nihilo origin of humans” (75). Because the image of God is the eternal Word of God, Augustine depicts “the sustaining core of human substantia not as a monotone, nonresponsive being but as a responsive movement of love and praise toward God. Indeed, the most oft-recurring description of created substantia in this context is ‘praise’” (75).

In the remaining three chapters of the book, Drever effectively shows how Augustine’s understanding of creation frames how Augustine describes human salvation through Jesus Christ. The soul, caught between the nothing from which it originated and the image of God to which God created it, requires formation toward its divine image. Physical objects turn the soul from the image of God toward creation as its image rather than the image of God:

Humans require an aid that both purifies them and leads them beyond mistaken images of God. For Augustine, this dilemma resolves into the call for faith in the incarnate Christ. Faith in Christ grounds a true knowledge of God and is a means of becoming purified. (100)

Augustine’s therapeutic doctrine of salvation becomes clear. Christ is the medicine to heal our sin-diminished in-souled body:

The flesh of Christ draws together the inner (spiritual) and outer (physical) dimensions of human life that need healing. The images we form of the crucified and resurrected Christ help conduct this healing in a manner that incorporates the entire human person while reorienting human vision toward, and training human attention for, the future (eschatological) reality of its fulfillment. The suffering Christ (visible) stands for the death of the soul (invisible) and body (visible), but in a manner that opens beyond suffering to the resurrected Christ (visible-invisible) and ultimately to the invisible God. This reveals true human healing as a movement that incorporates without reducing the physical into the spiritual and the temporal into the eternal while purifying humans from sin (impiety) and reforming their intellectual and volitional dimensions. (105-106)

Christ mediates the soul’s return to God. As fully human, Christ serves as an example ( exemplum ) of virtue; as the eternal Word, Christ is the sacrament ( sacramentum ) of grace on our behalf. As sacrament, the outward sign of an inward grace, Christ frees humans from sin and makes just and enlivens the soul; as example, Christ grants us the practices that humans need to approach our bodily death and resurrection well. We receive both as the Spirit grafts us into the Body of Christ which intensifies our contemplation and participation in God. Through Christ in the church, humans participate in the image of God to which God created us and for which God has redeemed us.

Drever applies the overlapping structure of the soul’s creation de nihilo and its restoration in Christ to provide a stunning reading of De Trinitate , Books 10-14. He shows how Augustine’s supposed psychological model for the Trinity serves as speculative spiritual exercise to move the soul to its just end in God through Christ. Augustine does not try to make propositional claims about the self’s certainty to itself. No self-certainty within the soul itself ever could exist. The soul must instead open itself to the image of God to acknowledge one’s own creation from nothing. “ Si fallor sum [‘If I err, I am’] is not finally the call of the lost, or hidden, self back to its own transparency and certainty in the face of radical skepticism but rather the call to the lost and sinful soul from the Word incarnate in Christ back to God ( idipsum )” (131). Augustine’s speculative spiritual exercise moves the soul to find its stability in worship:

The stability of the human person is found not in self-reflection but rather in the movement of love from God to creation and back to God…. The proper response to such certainty, to receiving one’s place within creation, cannot be self-assertion, which is pride. Rather, one should acknowledge one’s status as creature and refer power and goodness to the creator; that is, one should praise God. (141)

Such an attainment of the divine image requires wisdom amid human sin and self-deception – and thus it requires Christ, the Wisdom of God. As Drever notes, the unity of the two natures of Christ moves Christ as example into a sacrament as the human moves from knowledge to wisdom. Jesus atones for humanity because as truly human and truly divine in the unity of one person, Jesus IS the atonement, the at-one-ment of humanity and God. Wisdom belongs to an act of the soul (faith in Christ), given by God alone in Christ, so that the person may return to the divine image according to which God created her. One moves through the crucified Christ to Christ, the image of God. Always “between,” the human finds its true image as it loses itself in its eternal flourishing in God. Human dignity lies not in itself, but in God, from Whom, through Whom, and to Whom, the human, like all things, exists.

Drever’s careful explication of the Augustinian image of God and the human being reveals Augustine as neither modern nor postmodern, but nonetheless profoundly helpful to give us a language of human nature and dignity. The image of God does not exist as a specific “thing” nor as a void in its dialectical destruction as it moves toward death. Humans live to the image of God, found in the mystery of the eternally Triune God. The teleology that all humans experience finds its end not in the human self, but in God. Drever’s exposition of Augustine on the soul deeply resonates with Behr’s essay – perhaps finding a commonality in Augustine as exhibiting the unity of the Christian East and West. Even though the autonomous and free self dissipates, human dignity is not lost. Human nature remains in the image of God, the crucified and raised Jesus Christ, to which God creates us ever anew. Drever’s careful historical work on Augustine places human “nature” in the between. He shows how a careful return to the sources of the great intellectual tradition of the church provides profound, truthful resources to respond to the modern/postmodern debates concerning the human subject. Drever’s Augustine preserves human dignity without falling into either an anthropocentric humanism or a post-human pragmatics.

Original Sin and Human Dignity

The American Enlightenment’s emphasis on human dignity exhibited through the celebration of the autonomous self never accorded well with the Augustinian notion of original sin. If human dignity required the freedom of individuals, how could the autonomous individual bear responsibility for sin not its own? A second book on Augustine, Stricken by Sin, Cured by Christ: Agency, Necessity, and Culpability in Augustian Theology , continues the contemporary retrieval of Augustine. If Drever engaged Augustine regarding human nature, Jesse Couenhoven uses the tools of analytic philosophy to defend the center of Augustine’s understanding of original sin against ethical objections arising from the responsible self. Couenhoven tends to reduce Augustine’s teaching to distinct propositions within an underlying ethical pragmatism. He seeks to show “an Augustinian view of human agency is ultimately more humane than the alternatives, which burden the very individuals they claim to comprehend as free” (12). Augustine would find such a justification perplexing, to say the least. As Drever shows, Augustine would never find “humaneness” per se as the criterion for moral judgment. Human nature only finds its true end in its deification as seen in Jesus Christ. Humaneness in and of itself names sin – the human being curved into itself from its origin and end in God.

Couenhoven’s work divides into two parts. The first part is an analytic summary and ordering of Augustine’s teachings on original sin. The second part argues for what Couenhoven calls an “Augustinian compatibalism” – a type of “virtue theory of responsibility” (11). Couenhoven orders Augustine’s teaching on original sin into five interrelated, but distinct areas: 1) the primal sin – an issue that has engaged evangelicals recently; 2) human solidarity with the primal sin; 3) inherited sin, the “common guilt and a constitutional fault of disordered desire and ignorance” (23); 4) the penalty that accompanies primal and inherited sin; and finally, 5) how sin and its penalty transmits itself across time. Couenhoven argues that the third area, inherited sin, provides the conceptual center of the doctrine of original sin – “a condition of disordered desire, a misrelation to self and to God into which all human beings are born” (37).

Couenhoven defends Augustine’s doctrine of original sin through a very non-Augustinian concept, responsibility. Like a good student of Reinhold Neibuhr, Couenhoven argues that “it is essential to have a theory of responsibility that clarifies how it can be appropriate to hold persons responsible for involuntary, inherited sins” (109). Couenhoven thus formulates a doctrine of original sin compatible with the Cold War understanding of human dignity and rights: “what does it mean to be a responsible agent?” (109). He seeks “a theologically informed compatibilism that reforms common conceptions of culpability and responsibility” (115). He names, following Susan Wood, such responsibility “deep responsibility.” Deep responsibility links human agency to attributability: “We are responsible not only for what we choose to do but also for who we are” (129). Everyday language supports his position. To limit ethical responsibility to our free volition narrows the language of responsibility too much. We regularly hold persons responsible for positions and actions that we can attribute to their environment rather than “personal choice.” For instance, we hold children of racist parents and society morally culpable for their own racism, even though we know they did not necessarily “choose” it. Couenhoven’s “Augustinian compatibilism” seeks to use the pragmatic language of moral blame and praise as a type of non-metaphysical “natural law.”

Responsibility and freedom thus work on two different tracks: “It is common to assign praise and blame to people for behaviors that are under some degree of compulsion or are accidental in ways that make it hard – and perhaps unfair – to call them free” (175). Of course, such an observation assumes that original sin has itself not colored such attributions! In an Augustinian world, pragmatic considerations of praise and blame themselves reflect the twisting of human judgment. One never could trust how human beings morally assess actions in and of themselves as a moral proof. Nonetheless, Couenhoven argues that “we can be responsible without being free because we are active in, and personally own, our character and other mental and emotional states even if we have not endorsed them, and even if we lack voluntary control over them … they are me, and I am them” (187). While Augustine would agree with Couenhoven that “there is no deeper self behind this self” (187), Augustine’s conception of the image of God, absent from Couenhoven, does argue that a “deeper self” does beckon us forward to the self, the image of God, in front of our self. Couenhoven’s pragmatic self is neither transcendental nor between. It just is. As it is, it is responsible for the praise and blame it receives.

Couenhoven’s conceptual work allows him to revise an Augustinian doctrine, not of original sin, but original sin s :

All human beings who have reached even a primitive level of self-consciousness discover not only a world plagued with evil in various ways but also that not all is well within themselves, disordered beliefs and loves having preceded and informed their most basic cognitive, affective, and volitional powers and thus their actions…. Though we do not choose to be so, we find ourselves full of blameworthy beliefs and disordered loves, and therefore improperly related to the persons and world around us. (208)

Ultimately, Couenhoven owns such a teaching because he thinks it has empirical reality on its side. But Couenhoven also hopes it is “attractive on moral grounds because it provides a significant basis for mutual respect, humble solidarity with others, and gracious fairness in our attitudes toward and treatment of one another” (222). We might find a humane unity within our common moral fallibalism that would help us all get along in the diversity of a liberal culture. The Cold War mainline Protestant agenda raises its head again. The same pragmatic liberalism that reigned during the Cold War made a teaching of original sin difficult. The same pragmatic liberalism now finds “original sin” both “humane” and “attractive.” Times have deeply changed! An argument for a common human dignity comes in a pragmatic anthropology of original sins, rather than the rational determination of the autonomous open mind. The thinness of Couenhoven’s doctrine of God and near absence of Christology signals his underlying quest to fill in the Protestant center for the post-Cold War world. His attempt to translate thin theological convictions into the public square in order to support the American state repeats the failed mainline Protestant project of the 1950s.

The Rending of the Self: Gesturing toward the Between

Couenhoven presents a pragmatic, non-autonomous, sin-full self through the intersection of Christian anthropology and analytic philosophy. Brian Gregor, in A Philosophical Anthropology of the Cross: The Cruciform Self , engages a parallel task. Gregor presents a continuously dialectically constructed/deconstructed self as a “theology of the cross” – a different form of the same Protestant (anti)metaphysics seen in Couenhoven. Gregor asks in the book,

What does the cross of Christ – as both a historical event and a figure of Christian discourse – mean for thinking about the human being and what it means to become a self?… How does the cross affect the continuity of selfhood? How does it change the way we think about human capability and responsibility? (2)

Couenhoven began with Augustine to revise and define a distantly related version of Augustine’s theology of original sin. Gregor adopts a thematic approach with interlocutors largely embedded in the Lutheran tradition: Martin Luther, Soren Kierkegaard, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer name his heroes. Gregor’s program harkens back to that engaged by Drever. Given postmodernity’s deconstruction of the autonomous self to preserve the “open-mindedness” of liberal democracies against “totalitarianism,” how does one speak of a self without a self? Whereas Drever accessed the non-modern metaphysics of Augustine, Gregor uses the post-metaphysical dialectics embedded within postmodern continental thought. He provides a self that never is, but is always becoming through a dialectical movement between the ever, in-coming “outside” that wounds the self from “within” even as it constructs the self. He calls such understanding of the self a “theology of the cross.” This contrasts to a modernist, autonomous substantial self that he calls a “theology of glory.”

At first sight, the first part of Gregor’s text seems like an apologetic program of translating contemporary postmodern theory back into the Lutheran anti-scholasticism from which it came. Indeed, much of the first part of the work does so. The modern, autonomous, free self translates into the sinful self, the self curved into itself. The cross becomes the unsettling moment that deconstructs the self to create it always anew in terms of Paul Tillich’s “new being”: “When the cross destroys the substance of the sinner, this is … a soteriological destruction of self-willful efforts to establish one’s own subsistence before God. … The life of the new being is ‘soteriologically de-substantial’” (50). Yet Gregor complicates such a reductive reading. He pushes his program toward an Augustinian position as described by Drever: “Because of the hope of one’s own resurrection depends on the particular historical resurrection of Christ, it is not an inherent or innate attribute of our nature. It is an eschatological possibility” (52). Gregor appeals to Bonhoeffer’s realistic Christology to provide an end for the human cruciform self to another end rather than “solely in its movement toward death: “What if the Logos is Jesus Christ? … If this story is true, then this is where the human being finds its point of unity and the answer to the anthropological question” (100). The human self finds its end in the Word of God outside its self. The possibility of the truthfulness of the story of the crucified and raised Christ keeps the cruciform self open. I wonder, though. Can the anti-realism of Gregor’s philosophical commitments sustain a realistic claim about Jesus Christ? Or does this claim about Jesus provide a fideistic exception to the coherence of his thought?

We can see the tension as Gregor attempts to overcome a gap between the textual figure of the cross and the reality of the historically crucified and raised Christ. He uses Bonhoeffer’s distinction between the ultimate and the penultimate to overcome this tension. The ultimate comes in “the proclamation of the incarnate, crucified, and resurrected Christ” (113). The ultimate disrupts the system that moves only back and forth within immanence in the history of the self. The ultimate does not, however, destroy all that came before: the penultimate. The penultimate provides the context for the ultimate to appear: “The ultimate makes itself known in the penultimate, which is the ontological structure of human being in the world” (114). Gregor uses Bonhoeffer’s distinction to establish a historicized version of the Augustinian “between.” The “between” for Gregor, however, is not between the soul and its image that is the eternal Word of God seen in Jesus. The “between” is a temporal void in history, the possibility of a gap that could come, as proclaimed in the death and resurrection of Jesus. The death and resurrection of Jesus mean that historical processes never can fully enclose the self into the immanent flow of history. The death and resurrection of Jesus provide warrant for the self to remain open, waiting for a fulfillment that has come already, but not fully.

Gregor thus re-constitutes a Christian anthropology of the “open mind” or “open self” with its dignity always outside itself in what is ahead of it. It thus fulfills the same function within a moderate liberalism. It, like a modern autonomous, free self, remains open in its own self-determination. The cruciform self, however, remains open by “nature,” not by rational self-determination. It never “is.” It must constantly seal itself to prepare for the in-coming disruption necessary for its own, constant becoming. Christian theology serves to sustain a liberal notion of the open mind for liberal democracies against totalitarianism, even though we must now name the modern self as “sinful.”

In such a translation, we find the language of the “moderate liberalism” of mainline American Protestant culture similar to that which we found in Couenhoven. The cruciform self does not exist in and of itself. History constantly makes it and destroys it. Even though it is never autonomous in its own self-determination, the ultimate renders it both capable and responsible even in its penultimacy: “the category of the penultimate allows us to retrieve and affirm human capability and self-understanding after they have undergone the destructio of the cross” (120; italics in original). We must acknowledge the legitimacy of the accusations of our obligations and responsibilities against us in order to hear our justification by grace alone:

We can only hear the ultimate word of justification after we have traversed the penultimate – after we have been confronted by the face of the other…. We need to be accused by the law, to recognize our guilt and responsibility as infinite and unbearable, in order that we can recognize the costliness (and liberating power) of grace. (154-155)

The self remains contained in responsibility, but open to the ultimate – the crucified and raised Christ who withdraws in his giving as the person awaits, like waiting on Godot, for the ultimate to appear in faith and hope.

Gregor, however, again complicates such a reading “by considering Christ’s resurrection and its ontologically transformative potency” so that “the promise of the resurrection allows the world to be the world and the self to be fully human” (176). Bonhoeffer’s realistic Christology pushes Gregor against the limits of a theology confined to human consciousness:

If Christ has not already and actually risen in bodily form, then … Christ can only be there for me as a symbol, image, idea, example, or some other semantic figure. As such he can only be there for me insofar as he enters my horizon of understanding. But if Christ is risen as living flesh and blood, then philosophical hermeneutics is confronted with another that transcends self-understanding. (186)

The bodily resurrection of Jesus preserves philosophical anthropology against itself by rendering the cruciform self penultimate rather than ultimate. The self must always remain open to that which is outside itself. The resurrection of Jesus raises and perfects philosophy to an end that it cannot demand, but must receive as a gift: “The promise of resurrection follows the logic of the gift: it is unconditional. … By recognizing itself as penultimate, the world is free to flourish as the world, and the cruciform self is free to flourish as a human being” (198).

Gregor strains within the phenomenological tradition to give a post-metaphysical account of the human living toward her true end in the resurrected Christ, the image of God. Whether Bonhoeffer’s Christological realism can work as a transcendent condition to keep open the dialectic of the simultaneous affirmation and negation of the self seems doubtful to me. The anti-realism of philosophies confined to human consciousness strike Gregor hard. It seems to me that his project dissolves into a fideism without a participatory metaphysics of creation and redemption like Augustine provides. Gregor’s text works best as it moves toward a type of historical “between” for the self in which the human being hovers between nothing and the image of God. When Gregor falls back into a dialectic of self-immolation by the other, merely trapped in the immanence of the historical flow, he produces a self that remains itself while simultaneously open to the future – the language of the Cold War open mind that called upon the support of mainline American Protestants. Without the image of God that is the eternal Word of the Father, the only “between” of the self is the eternal now of the present as it awaits the future in order to become.

Two Cities: Human Dignity in the Cold War Era or Human Dignity in Jesus Christ

A fifth and final book, Ron Highfield’s God, Freedom and Human Dignity: Embracing a God-Centered Self in a Me-Centered Culture , addresses American emerging adults who have accepted the polemic that the Christian God strives against human freedom and dignity. His book “makes one central point: God is not a threat to our freedom and dignity but their source and support” (14). Given sociological trends among emergent adults and the rise of the “nones,” 10 we should welcome Highfield’s book. He calls his work “more meditation than dissertation, designed to inspire love as much as to instruct the mind” (14) – a very Augustinian aim. Highfield identifies human freedom and dignity as qualities that have their origin and end in the Triune God. While the liberal democratic state forms “me-centered” selves that lose their dignity and freedom to their own fragmentation, the God witnessed to in Jesus Christ sustains humans in their full dignity and honor as human beings loved by God now and forever.

The book criticizes anchoring human dignity and freedom in the modern autonomous self. He writes, “we are taught that our self-worth and happiness depend on reconstructing ourselves according to our desires” (17). Highfield summarizes the work of Charles Taylor to give a clear genealogical account of the rise of the modern self and its practical outcome:

While our contemporaries look within themselves for moral sources and authority to guide them toward fullness, Christianity points to the transcendent God, who is Lord and Judge. Hence, God may appear to them as a threat to their dignity, which they identify with autonomy. (37)

He faces the challenge head on: “Our first challenge, then, will be to show how the modern self’s aspirations fall short of our highest hopes for respect, fullness and dignity. Next, we need to explain how the Christian view of these values fulfills them in a way that secular thought does not” (38).

This Augustinian two-cities approach bears great fruit. Accessible to students and the general reader, Highfield shows how the modernist self produces caricatures of the Triune God in order to push people away from God. He names the underlying issues behind the theological malaise of contemporary emerging adults as they move toward post-Protestantism:

The majority of our contemporaries reflexively defend the modern understanding of these values as self-evident and nonnegotiable. Since they hold these ideals as foundational they tend to view God as irrelevant to them. Those who suspect that modern values are threatened by the idea of God will adopt an attitude of defiance or subservience toward God. Others attempt to live in indifference or forgetfulness of God. Each of these three attitudinal stances projects a certain image of God, which proves to be at variance with the image of God portrayed in the Christian faith. (39; italics in original)

Highfield leads his reader into the historical Christian understanding of God and all things related to God. He works “to show that the view of God, freedom and dignity brought to light in Jesus Christ addresses the pain and paradox of the human condition and secures the hope that we will experience our true greatness and inherit our promised glory” (113). In short chapters he gently leads the reader into the orthodox Christian non-competitive and thus non-dialectical understanding of the relationship between God and the world. He explains: “The image of God revealed in Jesus Christ differs radically from the egocentric God of Prometheus or of Milton’s Satan. The way Jesus related to his Father in the Spirit reveals an inner Trinitarian relation of self-giving, receiving, returning and sharing” (150).

Human dignity and freedom find their fullest expression in participating in the image of God. Highfield takes the language arising from the Cold War’s humanism and raises and perfects it in light of the image of God seen in Jesus Christ. Whereas his book does not have the full metaphysical depth and precision as that read by Drever in Augustine, it bears a deep family resemblance. Highfield presents the self as the image of God as not something possessed, but as that which lies ahead of us in Christ:

The Christian hope envisions a state in which we attain freedom to become fully our true selves. We were created to image the character of God and to reflect his glory to all creation. Through Christ and in the Spirit, God empowers us to overcome the “other” so that we become truly free, that is, we become in our actions and existence what we are in our true being. (190)

We do not find human freedom and dignity in our self but in God: “ God bestows on us the same dignity that God bestows on himself, for God loves us no less that God loves himself” (203; italics in original). As in Behr and in Drever’s reading of Augustine, Highfield argues that we find the full dignity of the human being outside our self in God. He states: “No higher dignity can be imagined or conceived. Hence there are no grounds to envy God or resent God’s status” (203-204). God does not stand as our competitor within the same realm of Being. God does not move into a relationship with us dialectically by moving to us and then from us as we assert our freedom and dignity as an autonomous self or as a self constantly deconstructed by the other. In simple and beautiful language, Highfield reminds the reader in deeply contemporary and Augustinian language, “even though we were by nature nothing, by deeds sinners and by affections enemies, God loved us. There is and can be no higher dignity. It is beyond our wildest imagination, transcending all our conceptual powers” (206). Given its accessibility and readability, Highfield’s book represents the most important book in this review essay for the readers of Christian Scholar’s Review and their students.

Perhaps Highfield’s non-biblicist, profoundly evangelical performance points toward an ecumenical consensus that Thomas Albert Howard sought. The faith once delivered to the saints can account for human dignity and freedom as the beginning and end as we live “between” the nothingness of our nature and the fullness of dignity and honor conferred upon us through participation in the Triune Love made visible in the image of God, Jesus Christ. Human nature always lies ahead of and behind us in the fullness of the image of God, Jesus Christ. We receive this dignity and honor in our very existence even as it becomes received as a gift in redemption through Christ as we receive the gift of our existence – and the existence of all things. The witness of the great Christian Tradition calls the church together to visible unity, even amid its contemporary, fragmented, sinful state of visible disunity.

Perhaps here also is why we can hear the liberal democratic, Cold War notion of human dignity and freedom as both worthy of preservation while at the same time an ideological ploy to sustain the coercive power of the state. Classical liberal democratic political theory can no longer give a coherent account for the autonomous yet open self. We see this in the contradictions in contemporary legal issues: Corporations and avatars become persons, while fetuses, unlawful combatants, and the poor who live without property rights are not. The Cold War anchorage in an autonomous but open self remains a poor simulacrum that signs beyond itself. We sense its importance in its inadequacy to describe human freedom and dignity in terms of “human rights” that it holds so dear. It is why a non-Christologically inscribed theory of natural law for human dignity and honor as human rights will ultimately undercut the witness of the church. 11 The liberal democratic politics of the Western European nation-state cannot give us the depth of description of the reality humans experience as we live in the “between” of human “nature.” Human dignity and freedom come as we live from the image of God, through the image of God, and to the image of God as made visible in Jesus Christ.

Cite this article

  • “The Allies cause has been dressed up in lots of clothes—the People’s War, the war to liberate Europe, the war against Fascism and Racism. But these different intellectual frameworks arise out of a political coalition mobilized to prosecute the war, one that in its different ways also constructed the peace.” James Heartfield, An Unpatriotic History of the Second World War (Winchester, UK/Washington, USA: Zero Books, 2012), 471.
  • See George Marsden, The Twilight of the American Enlightenment: The 1950s and the Crisis of Liberal Belief (New York: Basic Books, 2014).
  • For an account of how the language of the “open-mind” served to differentiate the United States from communist and authoritarian regimes through higher educational reform and the social sciences, see Jamie Cohen-Cole, The Open Mind: Cold War Politics and the Sciences of Human Nature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014).
  • Joseph Bottum, An Anxious Age: The Post-Protestant Ethic and Spirit of America (New York: Image, 2014), Kindle edition, loc. 128-131.
  • Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 196.
  • Behr’s work particularly develops out of his engagement with Irenaeus. See John Behr, Irenaeus of Lyons: Identifying Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013); see also his reflective mediations on the subject with icons, Becoming Human: Meditations on Christian Anthropology in Word and Image (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2013).
  • Bottum persuasively interprets this evangelical commitment to natural law: “As the Mainline Protestant churches went into catastrophic decline, however, a hole opened at the center of American public life, and into that vacuum were pulled two groups that had always before stood on the outside looking in: Catholics and Evangelicals.” Anxious Age , loc. 2632.
  • The literature has become expansive. For an introduction, see Robert Dodaro and George Lawless, eds., Augustine and his Critics: Essays in Honor of Gerald Bonner (London and New York: Routledge, 2000). See also Michael Hanby, Augustine and Modernity, Radical Orthodoxy Series (London and New York: Routledge, 2003) and Lewis Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014).
  • For a contemporary philosophical defense of the notion of “the between,” see Williams Desmond, The William Desmond Reader , ed. Christopher Ben Simpson (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2012).
  • See Christian Smith, Lost in Transition: The Dark Side of Emerging Adulthood (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). For the rise of the “nones,” see Mark Chaves, American Religion: Contemporary Trends (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011).
  • See Joan Lockwood O’Donovan, ”Human Dignity and Human Justice in Theological Perspective” in The Grandeur of Reason: Religion, Tradition and Universalism , eds. Peter M. Candler and Conor Cunningham (London: SCM Press, 2010), 118-134.

human dignity reflection essay

John W. Wright

Recent articles.

human dignity reflection essay

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

human dignity reflection essay

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

human dignity reflection essay

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

human dignity reflection essay

Essay on Human Rights: Samples in 500 and 1500

dulingo

  • Updated on  
  • Jun 20, 2024

Essay on Human Rights

Essay writing is an integral part of the school curriculum and various academic and competitive exams like IELTS , TOEFL , SAT , UPSC , etc. It is designed to test your command of the English language and how well you can gather your thoughts and present them in a structure with a flow. To master your ability to write an essay, you must read as much as possible and practise on any given topic. This blog brings you a detailed guide on how to write an essay on Human Rights , with useful essay samples on Human rights.

This Blog Includes:

The basic human rights, 200 words essay on human rights, 500 words essay on human rights, 500+ words essay on human rights in india, 1500 words essay on human rights, importance of human rights, essay on human rights pdf, what are human rights.

Human rights mark everyone as free and equal, irrespective of age, gender, caste, creed, religion and nationality. The United Nations adopted human rights in light of the atrocities people faced during the Second World War. On the 10th of December 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Its adoption led to the recognition of human rights as the foundation for freedom, justice and peace for every individual. Although it’s not legally binding, most nations have incorporated these human rights into their constitutions and domestic legal frameworks. Human rights safeguard us from discrimination and guarantee that our most basic needs are protected.

Also Read: Essay on Yoga Day

Also Read: Speech on Yoga Day

Before we move on to the essays on human rights, let’s check out the basics of what they are.

Human Rights

Also Read: What are Human Rights?

Also Read: 7 Impactful Human Rights Movies Everyone Must Watch!

Here is a 200-word short sample essay on basic Human Rights.

Human rights are a set of rights given to every human being regardless of their gender, caste, creed, religion, nation, location or economic status. These are said to be moral principles that illustrate certain standards of human behaviour. Protected by law , these rights are applicable everywhere and at any time. Basic human rights include the right to life, right to a fair trial, right to remedy by a competent tribunal, right to liberty and personal security, right to own property, right to education, right of peaceful assembly and association, right to marriage and family, right to nationality and freedom to change it, freedom of speech, freedom from discrimination, freedom from slavery, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of movement, right of opinion and information, right to adequate living standard and freedom from interference with privacy, family, home and correspondence.

Also Read: Law Courses

Check out this 500-word long essay on Human Rights.

Every person has dignity and value. One of the ways that we recognise the fundamental worth of every person is by acknowledging and respecting their human rights. Human rights are a set of principles concerned with equality and fairness. They recognise our freedom to make choices about our lives and develop our potential as human beings. They are about living a life free from fear, harassment or discrimination.

Human rights can broadly be defined as the basic rights that people worldwide have agreed are essential. These include the right to life, the right to a fair trial, freedom from torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to health, education and an adequate standard of living. These human rights are the same for all people everywhere – men and women, young and old, rich and poor, regardless of our background, where we live, what we think or believe. This basic property is what makes human rights’ universal’.

Human rights connect us all through a shared set of rights and responsibilities. People’s ability to enjoy their human rights depends on other people respecting those rights. This means that human rights involve responsibility and duties towards other people and the community. Individuals have a responsibility to ensure that they exercise their rights with consideration for the rights of others. For example, when someone uses their right to freedom of speech, they should do so without interfering with someone else’s right to privacy.

Governments have a particular responsibility to ensure that people can enjoy their rights. They must establish and maintain laws and services that enable people to enjoy a life in which their rights are respected and protected. For example, the right to education says that everyone is entitled to a good education. Therefore, governments must provide good quality education facilities and services to their people. If the government fails to respect or protect their basic human rights, people can take it into account.

Values of tolerance, equality and respect can help reduce friction within society. Putting human rights ideas into practice can help us create the kind of society we want to live in. There has been tremendous growth in how we think about and apply human rights ideas in recent decades. This growth has had many positive results – knowledge about human rights can empower individuals and offer solutions for specific problems.

Human rights are an important part of how people interact with others at all levels of society – in the family, the community, school, workplace, politics and international relations. Therefore, people everywhere must strive to understand what human rights are. When people better understand human rights, it is easier for them to promote justice and the well-being of society. 

Also Read: Important Articles in Indian Constitution

Here is a human rights essay focused on India.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. It has been rightly proclaimed in the American Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Created with certain unalienable rights….” Similarly, the Indian Constitution has ensured and enshrined Fundamental rights for all citizens irrespective of caste, creed, religion, colour, sex or nationality. These basic rights, commonly known as human rights, are recognised the world over as basic rights with which every individual is born.

In recognition of human rights, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was made on the 10th of December, 1948. This declaration is the basic instrument of human rights. Even though this declaration has no legal bindings and authority, it forms the basis of all laws on human rights. The necessity of formulating laws to protect human rights is now being felt all over the world. According to social thinkers, the issue of human rights became very important after World War II concluded. It is important for social stability both at the national and international levels. Wherever there is a breach of human rights, there is conflict at one level or the other.

Given the increasing importance of the subject, it becomes necessary that educational institutions recognise the subject of human rights as an independent discipline. The course contents and curriculum of the discipline of human rights may vary according to the nature and circumstances of a particular institution. Still, generally, it should include the rights of a child, rights of minorities, rights of the needy and the disabled, right to live, convention on women, trafficking of women and children for sexual exploitation etc.

Since the formation of the United Nations , the promotion and protection of human rights have been its main focus. The United Nations has created a wide range of mechanisms for monitoring human rights violations. The conventional mechanisms include treaties and organisations, U.N. special reporters, representatives and experts and working groups. Asian countries like China argue in favour of collective rights. According to Chinese thinkers, European countries lay stress upon individual rights and values while Asian countries esteem collective rights and obligations to the family and society as a whole.

With the freedom movement the world over after World War II, the end of colonisation also ended the policy of apartheid and thereby the most aggressive violation of human rights. With the spread of education, women are asserting their rights. Women’s movements play an important role in spreading the message of human rights. They are fighting for their rights and supporting the struggle for human rights of other weaker and deprived sections like bonded labour, child labour, landless labour, unemployed persons, Dalits and elderly people.

Unfortunately, violation of human rights continues in most parts of the world. Ethnic cleansing and genocide can still be seen in several parts of the world. Large sections of the world population are deprived of the necessities of life i.e. food, shelter and security of life. Right to minimum basic needs viz. Work, health care, education and shelter are denied to them. These deprivations amount to the negation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Also Read: Human Rights Courses

Check out this detailed 1500-word essay on human rights.

The human right to live and exist, the right to equality, including equality before the law, non-discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, and equality of opportunity in matters of employment, the right to freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence, the right to practice any profession or occupation, the right against exploitation, prohibiting all forms of forced labour, child labour and trafficking in human beings, the right to freedom of conscience, practice and propagation of religion and the right to legal remedies for enforcement of the above are basic human rights. These rights and freedoms are the very foundations of democracy.

Obviously, in a democracy, the people enjoy the maximum number of freedoms and rights. Besides these are political rights, which include the right to contest an election and vote freely for a candidate of one’s choice. Human rights are a benchmark of a developed and civilised society. But rights cannot exist in a vacuum. They have their corresponding duties. Rights and duties are the two aspects of the same coin.

Liberty never means license. Rights presuppose the rule of law, where everyone in the society follows a code of conduct and behaviour for the good of all. It is the sense of duty and tolerance that gives meaning to rights. Rights have their basis in the ‘live and let live’ principle. For example, my right to speech and expression involves my duty to allow others to enjoy the same freedom of speech and expression. Rights and duties are inextricably interlinked and interdependent. A perfect balance is to be maintained between the two. Whenever there is an imbalance, there is chaos.

A sense of tolerance, propriety and adjustment is a must to enjoy rights and freedom. Human life sans basic freedom and rights is meaningless. Freedom is the most precious possession without which life would become intolerable, a mere abject and slavish existence. In this context, Milton’s famous and oft-quoted lines from his Paradise Lost come to mind: “To reign is worth ambition though in hell/Better to reign in hell, than serve in heaven.”

However, liberty cannot survive without its corresponding obligations and duties. An individual is a part of society in which he enjoys certain rights and freedom only because of the fulfilment of certain duties and obligations towards others. Thus, freedom is based on mutual respect’s rights. A fine balance must be maintained between the two, or there will be anarchy and bloodshed. Therefore, human rights can best be preserved and protected in a society steeped in morality, discipline and social order.

Violation of human rights is most common in totalitarian and despotic states. In the theocratic states, there is much persecution, and violation in the name of religion and the minorities suffer the most. Even in democracies, there is widespread violation and infringement of human rights and freedom. The women, children and the weaker sections of society are victims of these transgressions and violence.

The U.N. Commission on Human Rights’ main concern is to protect and promote human rights and freedom in the world’s nations. In its various sessions held from time to time in Geneva, it adopts various measures to encourage worldwide observations of these basic human rights and freedom. It calls on its member states to furnish information regarding measures that comply with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whenever there is a complaint of a violation of these rights. In addition, it reviews human rights situations in various countries and initiates remedial measures when required.

The U.N. Commission was much concerned and dismayed at the apartheid being practised in South Africa till recently. The Secretary-General then declared, “The United Nations cannot tolerate apartheid. It is a legalised system of racial discrimination, violating the most basic human rights in South Africa. It contradicts the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter. That is why over the last forty years, my predecessors and I have urged the Government of South Africa to dismantle it.”

Now, although apartheid is no longer practised in that country, other forms of apartheid are being blatantly practised worldwide. For example, sex apartheid is most rampant. Women are subject to abuse and exploitation. They are not treated equally and get less pay than their male counterparts for the same jobs. In employment, promotions, possession of property etc., they are most discriminated against. Similarly, the rights of children are not observed properly. They are forced to work hard in very dangerous situations, sexually assaulted and exploited, sold and bonded for labour.

The Commission found that religious persecution, torture, summary executions without judicial trials, intolerance, slavery-like practices, kidnapping, political disappearance, etc., are being practised even in the so-called advanced countries and societies. The continued acts of extreme violence, terrorism and extremism in various parts of the world like Pakistan, India, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Somalia, Algeria, Lebanon, Chile, China, and Myanmar, etc., by the governments, terrorists, religious fundamentalists, and mafia outfits, etc., is a matter of grave concern for the entire human race.

Violation of freedom and rights by terrorist groups backed by states is one of the most difficult problems society faces. For example, Pakistan has been openly collaborating with various terrorist groups, indulging in extreme violence in India and other countries. In this regard the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva adopted a significant resolution, which was co-sponsored by India, focusing on gross violation of human rights perpetrated by state-backed terrorist groups.

The resolution expressed its solidarity with the victims of terrorism and proposed that a U.N. Fund for victims of terrorism be established soon. The Indian delegation recalled that according to the Vienna Declaration, terrorism is nothing but the destruction of human rights. It shows total disregard for the lives of innocent men, women and children. The delegation further argued that terrorism cannot be treated as a mere crime because it is systematic and widespread in its killing of civilians.

Violation of human rights, whether by states, terrorists, separatist groups, armed fundamentalists or extremists, is condemnable. Regardless of the motivation, such acts should be condemned categorically in all forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomever they are committed, as acts of aggression aimed at destroying human rights, fundamental freedom and democracy. The Indian delegation also underlined concerns about the growing connection between terrorist groups and the consequent commission of serious crimes. These include rape, torture, arson, looting, murder, kidnappings, blasts, and extortion, etc.

Violation of human rights and freedom gives rise to alienation, dissatisfaction, frustration and acts of terrorism. Governments run by ambitious and self-seeking people often use repressive measures and find violence and terror an effective means of control. However, state terrorism, violence, and human freedom transgressions are very dangerous strategies. This has been the background of all revolutions in the world. Whenever there is systematic and widespread state persecution and violation of human rights, rebellion and revolution have taken place. The French, American, Russian and Chinese Revolutions are glowing examples of human history.

The first war of India’s Independence in 1857 resulted from long and systematic oppression of the Indian masses. The rapidly increasing discontent, frustration and alienation with British rule gave rise to strong national feelings and demand for political privileges and rights. Ultimately the Indian people, under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, made the British leave India, setting the country free and independent.

Human rights and freedom ought to be preserved at all costs. Their curtailment degrades human life. The political needs of a country may reshape Human rights, but they should not be completely distorted. Tyranny, regimentation, etc., are inimical of humanity and should be resisted effectively and united. The sanctity of human values, freedom and rights must be preserved and protected. Human Rights Commissions should be established in all countries to take care of human freedom and rights. In cases of violation of human rights, affected individuals should be properly compensated, and it should be ensured that these do not take place in future.

These commissions can become effective instruments in percolating the sensitivity to human rights down to the lowest levels of governments and administrations. The formation of the National Human Rights Commission in October 1993 in India is commendable and should be followed by other countries.

Also Read: Law Courses in India

Human rights are of utmost importance to seek basic equality and human dignity. Human rights ensure that the basic needs of every human are met. They protect vulnerable groups from discrimination and abuse, allow people to stand up for themselves, and follow any religion without fear and give them the freedom to express their thoughts freely. In addition, they grant people access to basic education and equal work opportunities. Thus implementing these rights is crucial to ensure freedom, peace and safety.

Human Rights Day is annually celebrated on the 10th of December.

Human Rights Day is celebrated to commemorate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UNGA in 1948.

Some of the common Human Rights are the right to life and liberty, freedom of opinion and expression, freedom from slavery and torture and the right to work and education.

Popular Essay Topics

We hope our sample essays on Human Rights have given you some great ideas. For more information on such interesting blogs, visit our essay writing page and follow Leverage Edu .

' src=

Sonal is a creative, enthusiastic writer and editor who has worked extensively for the Study Abroad domain. She splits her time between shooting fun insta reels and learning new tools for content marketing. If she is missing from her desk, you can find her with a group of people cracking silly jokes or petting neighbourhood dogs.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

browse success stories

Leaving already?

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

human dignity reflection essay

Resend OTP in

human dignity reflection essay

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

September 2024

January 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

human dignity reflection essay

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — Moral — The Concept of Human Dignity

test_template

The Concept of Human Dignity

  • Categories: Moral Virtue Ethics

About this sample

close

Words: 687 |

Published: Jan 31, 2024

Words: 687 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Definition and understanding of human dignity, historical development of the concept of human dignity, importance of human dignity in society, controversies surrounding the concept of human dignity, human dignity in contemporary society.

  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights
  • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Image of Dr. Charlotte Jacobson

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

  • 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
  • Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

author

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

  • Expert in: Philosophy

writer

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1419 words

1 pages / 1515 words

2 pages / 799 words

1 pages / 598 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Moral

Moral philosophy has long been a subject of profound debate and contemplation, with various ethical theories offering distinct perspectives on how we should make moral decisions. Two prominent ethical frameworks, utilitarianism [...]

In recent years, the feminist transformation of moral theory has sparked significant debate and critical analysis within the academic community. This evolving discourse challenges traditional ethical frameworks by bringing to [...]

Abortion remains one of the most contentious issues in modern society, invoking passionate arguments from both proponents and opponents. This essay argues that abortion is fundamentally wrong, rooted in ethical, moral, and [...]

The concept of evil has been a subject of philosophical, theological, and cultural discourse for centuries. It is a multifaceted term that elicits a broad spectrum of interpretations and definitions, depending on the context in [...]

“Rules and criteria for ethical judgement are all very well, but when conflicts are finely balanced, we simply express our preferences.”The concept of moral justification in ethics examples has been a topic of discussion for [...]

Throughout the annals of literature, human beings have grappled with the intricacies of morality, often delving into the depths of evil actions. These actions, ranging from petty theft to heinous crimes like murder, have been a [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

  • Instructions Followed To The Letter
  • Deadlines Met At Every Stage
  • Unique And Plagiarism Free

human dignity reflection essay

Life and Dignity of the Human Person

Genesis 1:26-31          God created man and woman in his image.      

Deuteronomy 10:17-19            God loves the orphan, the widow, and the stranger.        

Psalms 139:13-16              God formed each of us and knows us intimately.        

Proverbs 22:2            The Lord is the maker of both rich and poor.

Luke 10:25-37            The  good Samaritan recognized the dignity in the other and cared for his life.

John 4:1-42     Jesus  broke with societal and religious customs to honor the dignity of the Samaritan  woman.

Romans 12: 9-18            Love one another, contribute to the needs of others, live peaceably with all.

1 Corinthians 3:16            You are holy, for you are God’s temple and God dwells in you.

Galatians 3:27-28            All Christians are one in Christ Jesus.

James 2:1-8            Honor  the poor.

1 John 3: 1-2            See  what love the Father has for us, that we should be called Children of God.

1 John 4:7-12            Let us  love one another because love is from God.

Tradition  

“The world exists for everyone, because all of us were born with the same dignity. Differences of color, religion, talent, place of birth or residence, and so many others, cannot be used to justify the privileges of some over the rights of all. As a community, we have an obligation to ensure that every person lives with dignity and has sufficient opportunities for his or her integral development.” (Pope Francis, On Fraternity and Social Friendship  [ Fratelli Tutt i], no. 118) 

“The dignity of others is to be respected in all circumstances, not because that dignity is something we have invented or imagined, but because human beings possess an intrinsic worth superior to that of material objects and contingent situations. This requires that they be treated differently. That every human being possesses an inalienable dignity is a truth that corresponds to human nature apart from all cultural change. For this reason, human beings have the same inviolable dignity in every age of history and no one can consider himself or herself authorized by particular situations to deny this conviction or to act against it.” (Pope Francis, On Fraternity and Social Friendship [ Fratelli Tutt i], no. 213) 

“Our defense of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection. We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.” (Pope Francis, Rejoice and Be Glad [ Gaudete et Exsultate ], no. 101) 

“Human beings too are creatures of this world, enjoying a right to life and happiness, and endowed with unique dignity. So we cannot fail to consider the effects on people’s lives of environmental deterioration, current models of development and the throwaway culture.” (Pope Francis,  On Care for Our Common Home  [ Laudato Si' ], no. 43). 

"When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities – to offer just a few examples – it becomes difficult to hear the cry of nature itself; everything is connected." (Pope Francis, On Care for Our Common Home [ Laudato Si' ], no. 117) "Just as the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say 'thou shalt not' to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape. Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a 'throw away' culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society's underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the 'exploited' but the outcast, the 'leftovers'." (Pope Francis, The Joy of the Gospel [ Evangelii Gaudium ], no. 53)

"The dignity  of the individual and the demands of justice require, particularly today, that  economic choices do not cause disparities in wealth to increase in an excessive  and morally unacceptable manner." (Pope Benedict XVI, Charity  in Truth [ Caritas in Veritate ], no. 32)

Human persons are  willed by God; they are imprinted with God's image. Their dignity does not come  from the work they do, but from the persons they are. (See St. John Paul II, On the Hundredth Year [ Centesimus annus] , no. 11)

"The  basis for all that the Church believes about the moral dimensions of economic  life is its vision of the transcendent worth -- the sacredness -- of human  beings. The dignity of the human person, realized in community with others, is  the criterion against which all aspects of economic life must be measured.

All  human beings, therefore, are ends to be served by the institutions that make up  the economy, not means to be exploited for more narrowly defined goals. Human personhood must be respected with a reverence that is religious. When we deal  with each other, we should do so with the sense of awe that arises in the  presence of something holy and sacred. For that is what human beings are: we  are created in the image of God ( Gn 1:27 )." (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Economic Justice for All , no. 28)

"Every individual, precisely by reason of the mystery of  the Word of God who was made flesh (cf. Jn 1:14 ), is entrusted  to the maternal care of the Church. Therefore every threat to human dignity and  life must necessarily be felt in the Church's very heart; it cannot but affect  her at the core of her faith in the Redemptive Incarnation of the Son of God,  and engage her in her mission of proclaiming the Gospel of life in all the  world and to every creature (cf. Mk 16:15 )." (St. John Paul II, The  Gospel of Life [ Evangelium vitae ] , no. 3)

"As explicitly formulated, the precept 'You shall not kill' is strongly negative: it indicates the extreme limit which can never be  exceeded. Implicitly, however, it encourages a positive attitude of absolute  respect for life; it leads to the promotion of life and to progress along the  way of a love which gives, receives and serves." (St. John Paul II, The Gospel of Life [ Evangelium vitae ], no. 54)

"This teaching rests on one basic principle: individual human beings are the foundation, the cause and the end of every  social institution. That is necessarily so, for men are by nature social beings." (St. John XXIII, Mother and Teacher [ Mater et Magistra ] , no. 219)

"There exist also sinful inequalities that affect millions  of men and women. These are in open contradiction of the Gospel: 'Their equal  dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane  conditions. Excessive economic and social disparity between individuals and  peoples of the one human race is a source of scandal and militates against  social justice, equity, human dignity, as well as social and international  peace'." ( Catechism of the Catholic Church , no. 1938 citing Gaudium et Spes, 29)

"Whatever  insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary  imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and  children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are  infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who  practice them than those who suffer from the injury." (Second Vatican Council, The Church in the Modern World [ Gaudium et Spes ], no. 27)

     

 

-->
The President's Council on Bioethics
Washington, D.C.
March 2008

Part 5: Theories of Human Dignity

ome people hold that all human beings have a special type of dignity that is the basis for (1) the obligation all of us have not to kill them, (2) the obligation to take their well-being into account when we act, and (3) even the obligation to treat them as we would have them treat us. Indeed, those who hold that all human beings possess a special type of dignity almost always also hold that human beings are equal in fundamental dignity. They maintain that there is no class of human beings to which other human beings should be subordinated when considering their interests or their well-being, and when devising laws and social policies.

Other thinkers deny that all human beings have a special type of dignity. They maintain that only some human beings, because of their possession of certain characteristics in addition to their humanity (for example, an immediately exercisable capacity for self-consciousness, or for rational deliberation), have full moral worth. In this paper we defend the first of these two positions. We argue that all human beings, regardless of age, size, stage of development, or immediately exercisable capacities, have equal fundamental dignity.

Let us begin by offering a few preliminary thoughts on the general concept of . Dignity is not a distinct property or quality, like a body's color, or an organ's function. Although there are different types of dignity, in each case the word refers to a property or properties-different ones in different circumstances-that cause one to , and thus elicit or merit respect from others. Our focus will be on the dignity of a person or personal dignity. The dignity of a is that whereby a person excels other beings, especially other animals, and merits respect or consideration from other persons. We will argue that what distinguishes human beings from other animals, what makes human beings rather than , is their rational nature. Human beings are rational creatures by virtue of possessing natural capacities for conceptual thought, deliberation, and free choice, that is, the natural capacity to shape their own lives.

These basic, natural capacities to reason and make free choices are possessed by every human being, even those who cannot immediately exercise them. One's existence as a person thus derives from the kind of substantial entity one is, a human being-and this is the ground for dignity in the most important sense. Because personhood is based on the kind of being one is-a substantial entity whose nature is a nature-one cannot lose one's fundamental personal dignity as long as one exists as a human being.

There are other senses of the word "dignity." First, there is a type of dignity that varies in degree, which is the or of those capacities that distinguish humans from other animals. Thus, slipping on a banana peel (being reduced for a moment to a passive object), or losing one's independence and privacy (especially as regards our basic bodily functions), detract from our dignity in this sense. However, while this dignity seems to be compromised in certain situations, it is never completely lost. Moreover, this dignity, which varies in degree, is distinct from the more basic dignity that derives from simply being a person.

Second, it is important also to distinguish one's dignity. Something may harm one's dignity without damaging or compromising one's real dignity. People who become dependent on others often a certain loss of dignity. Yet their personal dignity, and even their manifestation of that dignity, may not have been harmed at all. Often one's sense of dignity can be at variance with one's real dignity. Those who are sick, and who bear their suffering in a courageous or holy manner, often inspire others even though they themselves may a loss of dignity.

Third, a person may be treated in a way at odds with his or her personal dignity. Human beings may be enslaved, they may be killed unjustly, raped, scorned, coerced, or wrongly imprisoned. Such treatment is undignified, yet it too, like a person's low sense of dignity, does not diminish a victim's personal dignity; the slave or the murder victim are wronged precisely because they are treated in a way at odds with their genuine personal dignity.

In truth, all human beings have real dignity simply because they are persons-entities with a natural capacity for thought and free choice. human beings have this capacity, so all human beings are persons. Each human being therefore deserves to be treated by all other human beings with respect and consideration. It is precisely this truth that is at stake in the debates about killing human embryos, fetuses, and severely retarded, demented, or debilitated human beings, and in many other debates in bioethics.

To explain the basis of human dignity, and how human beings inherently possess dignity, we will first explain more precisely the problem of the basis of human dignity; then we will examine proposals that deny that every human being has an intrinsic dignity that grounds full moral worth; then we will present and defend our position; finally, we will show how the feature (nature) that grounds full moral worth is possessed by human beings in all developmental stages, including the embryonic, fetal, and infant stages, and in all conditions, including severely cognitively impaired conditions (sometimes called "marginal cases").

The general problem regarding the ground of moral status can be expressed as follows. It seems that it is morally permissible to some living things, to consume them, or to experiment on them for our own benefit (without their consent, or perhaps when they are unable to give or withhold consent), but that it is not morally permissible to treat other beings in this way. The question is: where do we draw the line between those two sorts of beings? By what criterion do we draw that line? Or perhaps there just is no such line, and we should always seek to preserve beings, of whatever sort.

But we must eat, we must use some entities for food and shelter, and in doing so we inevitably destroy them. When we eat we convert entities of one nature into another and thus destroy them. Moreover, no one claims that we should not try to eradicate harmful bacteria (which are forms of life). That is, we should kill harmful bacteria in order to protect ourselves and our children. And it seems clear that we must harvest wheat and rice for food, and trees for shelter. So, plainly it is permissible to kill and use some living things. Given that it is not morally permissible to kill just any type of being, it follows that a line must be drawn, a line between those entities it is morally permissible to use, consume, and destroy, and those it is not permissible to use, consume, and destroy. How can the line be drawn in a non-arbitrary way?

Various criteria for where the line should be drawn have been proposed: sentience, consciousness, self-awareness, rationality, or being a moral agent (the last two come to the same thing). We will argue that the criterion is: having a rational nature, that is, having the natural capacity to reason and make free choices, a capacity it ordinarily takes months, or even years, to actualize, and which various impediments might prevent from being brought to full actualization, at least in this life. Thus, every human being has full moral worth or dignity, for every human being possesses such a rational nature.

While membership in the species is sufficient for full moral worth, it is not in any direct sense the criterion for moral worth. If we discovered extra-terrestrial beings of a rational nature, or if we found that some other terrestrial species did have a rational nature, then we would owe such beings full moral respect. Still, all members of the human species do have full moral worth, because all of them do have a rational nature and are moral agents, though many of them are not able immediately to exercise those basic capacities. One could also say that the criterion for full moral worth is , since a person is a rational and morally responsible subject.

The other suggestions listed above, we believe, are not tenable as criteria for full moral worth, and, worse yet, often have the practical effect of leading to the denial that human beings have full moral worth, rather than simply adding other beings to the set of beings deserving full moral respect. Hence it is vital to explain how "being a person"-that is, being a distinct substance with the basic natural capacities for conceptual thought and free choice-is the ground for the possession of basic rights.

Animal welfarists argue that the criterion for moral worth is simply the ability to experience enjoyment and suffering. Peter Singer, for example, quotes Jeremy Bentham: "The question is not, Can they ? nor Can they ? but, Can they ?" Singer then presents the following argument for this position:

, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in a meaningful way.. A stone does not have interests because it cannot suffer. Nothing that we can do to it could possibly make any difference to its welfare. The capacity for suffering and enjoyment is, however, not only necessary, but also sufficient for us to say that a being has interests-at an absolute minimum, an interest in not suffering.

In short, Singer's argument is: All and only beings that have interests have moral status; but all and only beings that can (now) experience suffering or enjoyment have interests; therefore, all and only beings that can (now) experience suffering or enjoyment have moral status.

The major difficulties with Singer's position all follow from the fact that his proposed criterion for moral status involves the possession of an accidental attribute that varies in degree. Both the capacity for suffering and the possession of interests are properties that different beings have in different degrees, and the interests themselves are possessed in varying degrees. As we shall show, this feature of Singer's theory leads to untenable conclusions.

Although Singer has made famous the slogan, "All animals are equal," this theory actually leads to that all animals, including all humans, have equal moral worth or basic rights. Singer means that "all animals are equal" in the sense that all animals are due "equal consideration." Where the interests of two animals similar in quality and magnitude, then those interests should be counted as equal when deciding what to do, both as individuals and in social policies and actions. However, as Singer himself points out, on this view, some animals can perform actions that others cannot, and thus have interests that those others do not. So the moral status of all animals is not, in fact, equal. One would not be required to extend the right to vote-or to education in reading and arithmetic-to pigs, since they are unable to perform such actions. This point leads to several problems when we attempt to compare interests. According to this view, it is the that matter, not that is affected by one's actions. So, on this view, it would logically follow that if a human child had a toothache and a juvenile rat had a slightly more severe toothache, then we would be morally required to devote our resources to alleviating the rat's toothache rather than the human's.

Moreover, a human newborn infant who will die shortly (and so does not appear to have long-term future interests) or a severely cognitively impaired human will be due consideration than a more mature horse or pig, on the ground that the mature horse or pig will have richer and more developed interests. Since the horse and the pig have higher cognitive and emotional capacities (in the sense of immediately or nearly immediately exercisable capacities) than the newborn infant (that will die shortly) and the severely cognitively impaired human, and since it is the interests that directly count morally, not the beings that have those interests, the interests of the horse and the pig should (on this account) be preferred to the interests of the newborn or the severely cognitively impaired human.

On the other hand, when we note the differences between types of interests, then Singer's position actually implies an indirect moral elitism. It is true that according to this position no individual animal is greater than another solely on the ground of its species (that is, according to its substantial nature). Still, one animal will be due more consideration-indirectly-if it has capacities for higher or more complex mental functions. As Singer puts it: "Within these limits we could still hold that, for instance, it is worse to kill a adult human, with a capacity for self-awareness, and the ability to plan for the future and have meaningful relations with others, than it is to kill a mouse, which presumably does not share all of these characteristics.." But this difference between degrees of capacity for suffering and enjoyment will also apply to individuals within each species. And so, on this view, while a human will normally have a greater capacity for suffering and enjoyment than other animals, and so will have a higher moral status (indirectly), so too, more intelligent and sophisticated human individuals will have a greater capacity for suffering and enjoyment than less intelligent and less sophisticated human individuals, and so the former will have a higher moral status than the latter. As Richard Arneson expressed this point, "For after all it is just as true that a creative genius has richer and more complex interests than those of an ordinary average Joe as it is true that a human has richer and more complex interests than a baboon."

These difficulties are all due to the selection of a criterion of moral worth that varies in degree. If the moral status-conferring attribute varies in degree-whether it be the capacity for enjoyment or suffering, or another attribute that comes in different degrees-it will follow that some humans will possess that attribute to a lesser extent than some nonhuman animals, and so inevitably some interests of some nonhuman animals will trump the interests of some humans. Also, it will follow that some humans will possess the attribute in question to a higher degree than other humans, with the result that not all humans will be equal in fundamental moral worth, i.e., . True, some philosophers bite the bullet on these results. But in our judgment this is too high a price to pay. A sound view of worth and dignity will not entail such difficulties.

On such a view, the criterion for moral worth must be the possession of a property that does not itself vary in degree-it must, that is, be the possession of a . Being of moral worth must be grounded in an entity's existence as a substance of a certain sort (we discuss what sort in more detail below) rather than in the possession of a set of accidental or variable properties.

This view explains why our moral concern is for persons, rather than for their properties. After all, when dealing with other persons it is clear that the locus of value is the persons themselves. Persons are not mere vehicles for what is intrinsically valuable: one's child, one's neighbor, or even a stranger, are not valuable only because of the valuable attributes they possess. If persons were valuable as mere vehicles for something else-some other quality that is regarded as what is of value-then it would follow that the basic moral rule would be simply to maximize those valuable attributes. It would not be morally wrong to kill a child, no matter what age, if doing so enabled one to have two children in the future, and thus to bring it about that there were two vehicles for intrinsic value rather than one.

On the contrary, we are aware that persons themselves-the substantial entities they are-are intrinsically valuable. But if that is so, then it would make sense that what distinguishes those entities that have full moral status (inherent dignity) from those that do not should be the type of substantial entity they are, rather than any accidental attributes they possess. True, it is not self-contradictory to hold that the person himself is valuable, but only in virtue of some accidental attributes he or she possesses. Still, it is more natural, and more theoretically economical, to suppose that has full moral status, and he or she has full moral status, are one and the same.

Moreover, this position more closely tracks the characteristics we find in genuine care or love. Our genuine love for a person remains, or should remain, for as long as that person continues to exist, and is not dependent on his or her possessing further attributes. That is, it seems to be the nature of care or love that it be unconditional, that we continue to desire the well-being or fulfillment of one we love for as long as he or she exists. Of course, this still leaves open the question whether continuing to live is always part of a person's well-being or fulfillment; we do maintain that a person's life always in itself a good, but that is a distinct question from the one being considered just now.

We shall argue below that being a substance is the criterion for moral worth. But the point now is that, whatever the specific criterion is, it involves existing as a type of

Moreover, the argument for sentience, or the ability to experience suffering and enjoyment, as basic criterion of moral status, supposes that only such beings have interests. However, although rocks do not seem to have interests, the same cannot be said about plants. It is not true that only beings with feelings or some level of consciousness can be reasonably considered to have interests. It is clear that living beings are fulfilled by certain conditions and damaged by others. As Paul Taylor, who defends a biocentrist view (according to which living beings have moral worth), explains,

One can then say that what promotes the organism's survival and flourishing is and what diminishes its chances of survival or flourishing is . Further, while it may be initially plausible to think that all animals have rights because they have interests, it is considerably less plausible to think that all living beings (which include wheat, corn, and rice, not to mention weeds and bacteria) have rights. But the interest argument would lead to that position.

Finally, the arguments advanced by Singer and Taylor do not actually attempt to establish that nonhuman animals and other living things have moral rights in the full sense of the term. We think it is true of living being, in some way, that we should not destroy or damage it. With sentient beings, whether their life goes well or badly for them will significantly include their pleasure, comfort, or lack of suffering. And so their flourishing includes pleasure and lack of pain (though it also includes other things such as their life and their activities). Yet it does not follow from these points that they have full basic and inherent dignity (moral worth) or rights. There simply is no conceptual connection between pleasure and pain (enjoyment and suffering) on the one hand, and full moral worth (including genuine rights), on the other hand.

However, almost no one actually argues that these beings have basic dignity or full moral rights. Rather, biocentrists argue that all living things merit consideration, but also hold that human beings are due consideration (though not, apparently, different in kind). In effect, instead of actually holding that all living beings (in the case of biocentrists) or all animals (in the case of animal welfarists) have , they have simply denied the existence of rights in the full sense of the term. Instead, they hold only that all living beings (or animals or higher mammals) deserve some varying degree of respect or consideration. We agree with this point, but we also maintain that every human being is a subject of rights, that is, every human being should be treated according to the golden rule, and it is absolutely wrong intentionally to kill any innocent human being or intentionally to deprive any innocent human being of any basic, intrinsic good. In other words, we grant that we should take account of the flourishing of living beings, and the pleasures and pains of nonhuman animals. But we are not morally related to them in the same way that we are related to other beings who, like ourselves, have a rational nature-beings whom (out of fairness) we should treat as we would have them treat us.

But one might argue for animal rights starting from our natural empathy or affection for them (though most people's natural empathy or affection, notably, does extend to all animals, for example, to spiders or snakes). If one identifies what is to be protected and pursued with what can be felt, that is, enjoyed or suffered in some way, then one might conclude that every entity that can have pleasure or pain deserves (equal?) consideration. If the only intrinsic good were what can be enjoyed, and the only intrinsic bad were suffering, then it would not be incoherent to hold that sentience is the criterion of moral standing, that is, that every entity with sentience has (some degree of) moral standing. In other words, it seems that one can present an for animal rights that begins from natural feelings of empathy only by way of a hedonistic theory of value. We can think of no other arguments that begin from that natural empathy with, or affection for, other animals.

But hedonism as a general theory of value is mistaken. The good is not exhausted by the experiential-the key tenet of hedonism. Real understanding of the way things are, for example, is pleasurable because it is fulfilling or perfective of us, not vice versa. The same is true of life, health, or skillful performance (one enjoys running a good race because it is a genuine accomplishment, a skillful performance, rather than vice versa). So, as Plato and Aristotle pointed out, hedonism places the cart before the horse.

Our desires are not purely arbitrary: we are capable of desiring certain things while other things leave us unmoved, uninterested. So, prior to being desired, the object desired must have something about it that makes it , or , to being desired. What makes it fitting to us is that it would or us in some way or other. Thus, what makes a thing good cannot consist in its being enjoyed, or in its satisfying desires or preferences. Rather, desires and preferences are rational only if they are in line with what is genuinely good, that is, genuinely fulfilling. So, hedonism is mistaken. It cannot then provide support for the view that sentience (or the capacity for suffering and enjoyment) is the criterion of full moral worth. While it is wrong to damage or kill a plant wantonly, still it can be morally right to do so for a good reason. Similarly, it is wrong wantonly to damage or kill a non-rational animal, but it can be morally right to do so for a good reason.

Human beings are fundamentally different in kind from other animals, not just genetically but in having a rational nature (that is, a nature characterized by basic natural capacities for conceptual thought, deliberation and free choice). Human beings perform , or conceptual thought, and such acts are fundamentally different kinds of acts than acts of sensing, perceiving, or imaging. An act of understanding is the grasping of, or awareness of, a nature shared in common by many things. In Aristotle's memorable phrase, to understand is not just to know water (by sensing or perceiving this water), but to know what it is to be water. By our senses and perceptual abilities we know the individual qualities and quantities modifying our sense organs-this color or this shape, for example. But by understanding (conceptual thought) we apprehend a nature held in common by many entities-not this or that instance of water, but what it is to be water. By contrast, the object of the sensory powers, including imagination, is always an individual, a at a particular place and a particular time, a characteristic, such as this red, this shape, this tone, an object that is thoroughly conditioned by space and time.

The contrast is evident upon examination of language. Proper names refer to individuals or groups of individuals that can be designated in a determinate time and place. Thus "Winston Churchill" is a name that refers to a determinate individual, whereas the nouns "human," "horse," "atom," and "organism" are common names. Common names do not designate determinate individuals or determinate groups of individuals (such as "those five people in the corner"). Rather, they designate . Thus, if we say, "Organisms are composed of cells," the word "organisms" designates the whole class of organisms, a class that extends indefinitely into the past and indefinitely into the future. All syntactical languages distinguish between proper names and common names.

But a class is not an arbitrary collection of individuals. It is a collection of individuals that have something in common. There is always some feature (or set of features), some intelligible nature or accidental attribute, that is the criterion of membership for the class. Thus, the class of organisms includes all, and only those, beings that have the nature of . And so, to understand the class as such, and not just be able to pick out individuals belonging to that class, one must understand the nature held in common. And to understand the class as a class (as we clearly do in reasoning) one must mentally apprehend the nature or features (or set of features) held in common by the members of the class and compare this to those individual members. Thus, to understand a proposition such as, "All organisms require nutrition for survival," one must understand a nature or universal content designated by the term "organisms": the term designates the nature or feature that entities must have in them in order to belong to that class.

Human beings quite obviously are aware of classes as classes. That is, they do more than assign individuals to a class based on a perceived similarity; they are aware of pluralities as holding natures or properties in common. For example, one can perceive, without a concept, the similarity between two square shapes or two triangular shapes, something that other animals do as well as human beings. But human beings also grasp the criterion, the universal property or nature, by which the similars are grouped together.

There are several considerations tending to confirm this fact. First, many universal judgments require an understanding of the nature of the things belonging to a class. If I understand, for example, that every organism is mortal, because every composite living thing is mortal, this is possible only if I mentally compare the nature, , with the nature, , and see that the former entails the latter. That is, my judgment that every composite living thing can be decomposed and thus die, is based on my insight into the nature of a composite living thing. I have understood that the one nature, , is entailed by the other nature, , and that knowledge I then advert to the thought of the individuals that possess those natures. In other words, I judge that individual composite living beings must be included within the class of individuals that are subject to death, but I judge only in virtue of my seeing that the nature, is necessitated by the nature, This point is also evident from the fact that I judge that a composite living being is capable of dying. By the senses, one can grasp only an individual datum. Only by a distinct capacity, an intellect, only by apprehending of a thing, can one grasp that a thing is thus or so.

The capacity for conceptual thought in human beings radically distinguishes them from other animals known to us. This capacity is at the root of most of the other distinguishing features of human beings. Thus, syntactical language, art, architecture, variety in social groupings and in other customs, burying the dead, making tools, religion, fear of death (and elaborate defense mechanisms to ease living with that fear), wearing clothes, true courting of the opposite sex, free choice and morality-all of these, and more, stem from the ability to reason and understand. Conceptual thought makes all of these specific acts possible by enabling human beings to escape fundamental limitations of two sorts. First, because of the capacity for conceptual thought, human beings' actions and consciousness are not restricted to the spatio-temporal present. Their awareness and their concern go beyond what can be perceived or imagined as connected immediately with the present. Second, because of the capacity for conceptual thought, human beings can reflect back upon themselves and their place in reality, that is, they can attain an objective view, and they can attempt to be objective in their assessments and choices. Other animals give no evidence at all of being able to do either of these things; on the contrary, they seem thoroughly tied to the here and now, and unable to take an objective view of things as they are in themselves, or to attempt to do so.

The capacity for conceptual thought is a capacity that human beings have in virtue of the kind of entity they are. That is, from the time they come to be, they are developing themselves toward the mature stage at which they will (unless prevented from doing so by disability or circumstances) perform such acts. Moreover, they are struc-tured-genetically, and in the non-material aspect of themselves-in such a way that they are oriented toward maturing to this stage. So, every human being, including human infants and unborn human beings, has this basic natural capacity for conceptual thought.

Human beings also have the basic natural capacity or potentiality to deliberate among options and make free choices, choices that are not determined by the events that preceded them, but are determined by the person making the choice in the very act of choosing. That is, for some choices, the antecedent events are not sufficient to bring it about that these choices be made in this way rather than another way. In such choices, a person could have chosen the other option, or not chosen at all, under the very same conditions. If a choice is free, then, given everything that happened to the person up to the point just prior to his choice-including everything in his environment, everything in his heredity, everything in his understanding and in his character-it was still possible for him to choose the other option, or not to choose at all. Expressed positively: he himself in the very act of choosing determines the content of his willing. Human beings are ultimate authors of their own acts of will and partial authors (together with nature and nurture) of their own character.

How, then, does a person finally choose one course of action rather than another? The person by his own act of choosing directs his will toward this option rather than that one, and in such a way that he could, in those very same circumstances, have chosen otherwise.

A good case can be made to support the position that human beings do make free choices. First, objectively, when someone deliberates about which possible action to perform, each option (very often, in any case) has in it what it takes to be a possible object of choice. When persons deliberate, and find some distinctive good in different, incompatible, possible actions, they are free, for: (a) they have the capacity to understand the distinct types of good or fulfillment found (directly or indirectly) in the different possible courses of action, and (b) they are capable of willing whatever they understand to be good (fulfilling) in some way or other. That is, each alternative offers a distinct type of good or benefit, and it is up to the person deliberating which type of good he will choose.

For example, suppose a student chooses to go to law school rather than to medical school. When he deliberates, both options have a distinctive sort of goodness or attractiveness. Each offers some benefit the other one does not offer. So, since each alternative has some intelligible value in it (some goodness that is understood), then each alternative be willed. And, second, while each is good to a certain extent, neither alternative (at least in many situations) is good, or better, in . Here the role of conceptual thought, or intellect, becomes clear. The person deliberating is able to see, that is, to , that each alternative is good, but that none is best absolutely speaking, that is, according to every consideration, or in every respect. And so, neither the content of the option nor the strength of one or another desire, determines the choice. Hence there are acts of will in which one directs one's will toward this or that option without one's choosing being determined by antecedent events or causes. Human persons, then, are fundamentally distinct from other animals in that they have a nature entailing the potentialities for conceptual thought and free choice.

Neither sentience nor life itself entails that those who possess them must be respected as ends in themselves or as creatures having full moral worth. Rather, having a rational nature is the ground of full moral worth.

The basis of this point can be explained, at least in part, in the following way. When one chooses an action, one chooses it for a reason, that is, for the sake of some good one thinks this action will help to realize. That good may itself be a way of realizing some further good, and that good a means to another, and so on. But the chain of instrumental goods cannot be infinite. So, there must be some ultimate reasons for one's choices, some goods that one recognizes as reasons for choosing that need no further support, that are not mere means to some further good.

Such ultimate reasons for choice are not arbitrarily selected. Intrinsic goods-that is, human goods that as basic aspects of human well-being and fulfillment provide more-than-merely-instrumental reasons for choices and actions-are not just whatever we happen to desire, perhaps different objects for different people. Rather, the intellectual apprehension that a condition or activity is or (of me and/or of others like me) is at the same time the apprehension that this condition or activity is a fitting object of pursuit, that is, that it would be worth pursuing. These fundamental human goods are the actualizations of our basic potentialities, the conditions to which we are naturally oriented and which objectively fulfill us, the various aspects of our fulfillment as human persons. They include such fulfillments as human life and health, speculative knowledge or understanding, aesthetic experience, friendship or personal community, and harmony among the different aspects of the self.

The conditions or activities understood to be fulfilling and worth pursuing are not individual or particularized objects. I do not apprehend merely that life or knowledge is intrinsically good and to be pursued. I apprehend that life and knowledge, whether instantiated in me or in others, is good and worth pursuing. For example, seeing an infant drowning in a shallow pool of water, I apprehend, without an inference, that a good worth preserving is in danger and so I reach out to save the child. The feature, is the feature in a condition or activity that makes it an ultimate reason for action. The question is: In what respect must someone be like me for his or her fulfillment to be correctly viewed as worth pursuing for its own sake in the same way that my good is worth pursuing?

The answer is not immediately obvious to spontaneous, or first-order, practical reasoning, or to first-order moral reasoning. That is, the question of the extension of the fundamental goods genuinely worthy of pursuit and respect needs moral reflection to be answered. By such reflection, we can see that the relevant likeness (to me) is that others too rationally shape their lives, or have the potentiality of doing so. Other likenesses-age, gender, race, appearance, place of origin, etc.-are not relevant to making an entity's fulfillment fundamentally worth pursuing and respecting. But being a rational agent relevant to this issue, for it is an object's being worthy of pursuit that I apprehend and that makes it an ultimate reason for action, and an intrinsic good. So, I ought primarily to pursue and respect not just life in general, for example, but the life of rational agents-a rational agent being one who either immediately or potentially (with a potentiality, as part of his or her nature) shapes his or her own life.

Moreover, I understand that the basic goods are not just good for me as an individual, but for me acting in communion-rational cooperation and real friendship-with others. Indeed, communion with others, which includes mutual understanding and self-giving, is itself an irreducible aspect of human well-being and fulfillment-a basic good. But I can act in communion-real communion-only with beings with a rational nature. So, the basic goods are not just goods for me, but goods for me and all those with whom it is possible (in principle, at least) rationally to cooperate. All of the basic goods should be pursued and respected, not just as they are instantiable in me, but as they are instantiable in any being with a rational nature.

In addition, by reflection we see that it would be inconsistent to respect my fulfillment, or my fulfillment plus that of others whom I just happen to like, and respect the fulfillment of other, immediately or potentially, rational agents. For, entailed by rational pursuit of my good (and of the good of others I happen to like) is a demand on my part that others respect my good (and the good of those I like). That is, in pursuing my fulfillment I am led to appeal to the reason and freedom of others to respect that pursuit, and my real fulfillment. But in doing so, consistency, that is, reasonableness, demands that I also respect the rational pursuits and real fulfillment of other rational agents-that is, any entity that, immediately or potentially (that is, by self-directed development of innate or inherent natural capacities), rationally directs his or her own actions. In other words, the thought of the Golden Rule, basic fairness, occurs early on in moral reflection. One can that the weather, and other natural forces, including any non-rational agent, will not harm one. But one has a moral or (one spontaneously makes a moral ) that other mature rational agents respect one's reasonable pursuits and real fulfillment. Consistency, then, demands that one respect reasonable pursuits and real fulfillment of others as well. Thus, having a rational nature, or, being a person, as traditionally defined (a distinct subject or substance with a rational nature) is the criterion for full moral worth.

On this position every human being, of whatever age, size, or degree of development, has inherent and equal fundamental dignity and basic rights. If one holds, on the contrary, that full moral worth or dignity is based on some accidental attribute, then, since the attributes that could be considered to ground basic moral worth (developed consciousness, etc.) vary in degree, one will be led to the conclusion that moral worth also varies in degrees.

It might be objected against this argument, that the basic natural capacity for rationality also comes in degrees, and so this position (that full moral worth is based on the possession of the basic natural capacity for rationality), if correct, would also lead to the denial of personal equality. However, the criterion for full moral worth is having a nature that entails the capacity (whether existing in root form or developed to the point at which it is immediately exercisable) for conceptual thought and free choice-not of that natural basic capacity to some degree or other (and to what degree would necessarily be an arbitrary matter). The criterion for full moral worth and possession of basic rights is not a capacity for conscious thought and choice, but a certain kind of thing, that is, having a specific type of substantial nature. Thus, possession of full moral worth follows upon being a certain type of entity or substance, namely, a substance with a rational nature, despite the fact that some persons (substances with a rational nature) have a greater intelligence, or are morally superior (exercise their power for free choice in an ethically more excellent way) than others. Since basic rights are grounded in being a certain type of substance, it follows that having such a substantial nature qualifies one as having full moral worth, basic rights, and equal personal dignity.

An analogy may clarify our point. Certain properties follow upon being an animal, and so are possessed by every animal, even though in other respects not all animals are equal. For example, every animal has some parts that move other parts, and every animal is subject to death (mortal). Since various animals are equally animals-and since being an animal is a type of substance rather than an accidental attribute-then every animal will equally have properties, even though (for example) not every animal equally possesses the property of being able to blend in well with the wooded background. Similarly, possession of full moral worth follows upon being a person (a distinct substance with a rational nature) even though persons are unequal in many respects (intellectually, morally, etc.).

These points have real and specific implications for the great controversial issues in contemporary ethics and politics. Since human beings are intrinsically valuable as subjects of rights at all times that they exist-that is, they do not come to be at one point, and acquire moral worth or value as a subject of rights only at some later time-it follows that human embryos and fetuses are subjects of rights, deserving full moral respect from individuals and from the political community. It also follows that a human being remains a person, and a being with intrinsic dignity and a subject of rights, for as long as he or she lives: there are no subpersonal human beings. Embryo-destructive research, abortion, and euthanasia involve killing innocent human beings in violation of their moral right to life and to the protection of the laws.

In sum, human beings constitute a special sort of animal. They differ in kind from other animals because they have a rational nature, a nature characterized by having the basic, natural capacities (possessed by each and every human being from the point at which he or she comes to be) for conceptual thought and deliberation and free choice. In virtue of having such a nature, all human beings are persons; and all persons possess the real dignity that is deserving of full moral respect. Thus, every human being deserves full moral respect.

_______________________

i. Boethius's definition of especially as interpreted by St. Thomas Aquinas, is still valid: "An individual substance (that is, a unique substance) of a rational nature." So, neither a nature held in common by many, nor a part is a person. But every whole human being performing its own actions, including actions such as growth toward the mature stage of a human, a person. See Boethius, and St. Thomas Aquinas, , Pt. I, q. 29, a. 1.

ii. Could this be true of every being, living or not? It is hard to see what the good or fulfillment of a non-living being is, since on that level it is hard to know just what are the basic, substantial entities as opposed to aggregates of entities. Thus, when we breathe we convert oxygen and carbon molecules into carbon dioxide molecules-have we destroyed the oxygen in that process or have we only rearranged the atoms in their constitution? It is hard to say.

iii. Peter Singer acknowledges that he is "not convinced that the notion of a moral right is a helpful or meaningful one, except when it is used as a shorthand way of referring to more fundamental considerations."

iv. We are simply abstracting from the issue of capital punishment in this essay.

v. Thus, the pleasures of the sadist or child molester are in themselves bad; it is false to say that such pleasures are bad only because of the harm or pain involved in their total contexts. It is false to say: "It was bad for him to cause so much pain, but at least he enjoyed it." Pleasure is secondary, an aspect of a larger situation or condition (such as health, physical, and emotional); what is central is what is really fulfilling. Pleasure is not a good like understanding or health, which are goods or perfections by themselves-that is, are good in themselves even if in a context that is overall bad or if accompanied by many bads. Rather, pleasure is good (desirable, worthwhile, perfective) if and only if attached to a fulfilling or perfective activity or condition. Pleasure is a good: a fulfilling activity or condition is better with it than without it. But pleasure is unlike full-fledged goods in that it is not a genuine good apart from some other, fulfilling activity or condition. It is a good if and only if attached to another condition or activity that is already good.

vi. It is worth noting that nonhuman animals themselves not only regularly engage in killing each other, but many of them (lions and tigers, for example) seem to depend for their whole mode of living (and so their flourishing), on hunting and killing other animals. If nonhuman animals really did have full moral rights, however, we would be morally required to stop them from killing each other. Indeed, we would be morally required to invest considerable resources-economic, military, even-in order to protect zebras and antelopes from lions, sheep and foxes from wolves, and so on.

vii. True, something extrinsic could preserve it from death, but it is the sort of thing that is, by its nature, subject to death. This is the basis for the major premise in the classic example of a syllogism: All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal.

viii. Another example will illustrate this point. When children arrive at the age at which they can study logic, they provide evidence of the ability to grasp a nature or property held in common by many. They obviously do something qualitatively distinct from perceiving a concrete similarity. For example, when studying elementary logic, the child (or young man or woman) grasps the common pattern found in the following arguments:

A. If it rains then the grass is wet.
The grass is not wet.
Therefore, it is not raining.

B. If I had known you were coming, I would have baked you a cake.
But I did not bake you a cake.
So, (you can see that) I did not know you were coming.

We understand the difference between this type of argument, a argument, and one that is similar but invalid, namely, the fallacy of affirming the consequent (If A then B, B, therefore A). But, what is more, we understand the fallacy of affirming the consequent is invalid-namely, some other cause (or antecedent) could be, or could have been, present to lead to that effect. A computer, a mechanical device, can be programmed the and to react differently to (give a different output for) words arranged in the pattern of the fallacy of affirming the consequent. But the arguments (which humans do) and merely them because programmed to do so (the actions of computers) are entirely different types of actions. The first does, while the second does not, require the understanding or apprehending of a form or nature as distinct from its instances. (This is not to say that the nature exists separately from the individuals instantiating it, or as a universal, outside the mind. We hold that the nature exists in the mind as a universal but in the real as individuated.)

ix. The genetic (and epigenetic) structure orients them toward developing a complex brain that is suitable to be the substrate for conceptual thought; that is, it is capable of providing the kind of sense experience and organization of sense experience that is suitable for data for concepts. Since the object of conceptual thought is not restricted to a particular place and time, this is evidence that the power of conceptual thought is non-material. So, we hold that human beings have a nonmaterial aspect, the powers of conceptual thought and free choice.

x. It is not essential to the defense of human dignity to argue that humans have this power of conceptual thought and (to be discussed in a moment) free choice. However, there is no evidence of such conceptual thought or free choice in other animals. It is sometimes argued that perhaps some nonhuman animals do have minds like humans do, only at a diminished level. Perhaps, it is speculated, it is only the complexity of the human brain, a difference only in degree, that distinguishes humans from other animals. Perhaps other primates are intelligent but they have lacked the opportunities to manifest their latent intelligence. But such speculation is misguided. While intelligence is not directly observable, it is unreasonable to think that an intelligence of the same type as human intelligence, no matter how diminished, would fail to manifest itself in at least some of its characteristic effects. If a group of beings possesses a power, and possesses that power over many years (even decades or centuries), it is implausible to think that such a power would not be actualized.

xi. The Humean notion of practical reason contends that practical reason begins with given ends that are not rationally motivated. However, this view cannot, in the end, make sense of the fact that we seem to make objective value judgments that are not contingent on, or merely relative to, what this or that group happens to desire-for example, the judgment that murder or torture is objectively morally wrong. Moreover, the Humean view fails to give an adequate account of how we come to desire certain objects for their own sake to begin with. A perfectionist account, on the contrary, one that identifies the intrinsic goods (the objects desired for their own sake) with objective perfections of the person, is able to give an account of these facts. For criticism of the Humean notion of practical reason, see: Joseph Boyle, "Reasons for Action: Evaluative Cognitions that Underlie Motivations," 46 (2001): 177-197; R. Jay Wallace, "How to Argue About Practical Reason," 99 (1990): 355-387; Christine Korsgaard, "Skepticism about Practical Reason," in her (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); David Brink, "Moral Motivation," 107 (1997): 4-32; John Finnis, (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1983), pp. 26-79; and Joseph Raz, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 288-368.

xii. The idea is this: what is to be done is what is perfective. This seems trivial and perhaps is obvious, but it is the basis for objective, practical reasoning. The question, "What is to be done?", is equivalent to the question, "What is to be actualized?" But what is to be actualiz is what actualiz , that is, what is objectively perfective. For human beings this is life, knowledge of truth, friendship, and so on.

xiii. Once one apprehends such conditions or activities as really fulfilling and worthy of pursuit, the norm arises when one has a choice between one option the choice of which is fully compatible with these apprehensions (or judgments) and another option that is not fully compatible with those judgments. The former type of choice is fully reasonable, and respectful of the goods and persons involved, whereas the latter type of choice is not fully reasonable and negates, in one way or another, the intrinsic goodness of one or more instances of the basic goods one has already apprehended as, and recognized to be, intrinsically good.

_______________________

1. See Jenny Teichman, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996).

2. Peter Singer, "All Animals are Equal," in 4th edition, ed. James P. Sterba (Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1994), p. 478, quoting Jeremy Bentham's (1789), chapter 17.

3. Peter Singer, op. cit., p. 441.

4. Jeff McMahan, whose views are in other respects more complex than Singer's, still holds that only interests are of direct moral concern, and explicitly recognizes and accepts this logical consequence. See his (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 205-206.

5. Peter Singer, op. cit., p. 484, emphasis added.

6. Richard Arneson, "What, If Anything, Renders All Humans Morally Equal?" in , ed. Dale Jamieson (Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell, 1999), pp. 103-127, at p. 105.

7. This is our solution to what Richard Arneson calls "the Singer problem." See Richard Arneson, loc. cit.

8. Paul Taylor, "The Ethics of Respect for Nature," in , 4th edition, ed. James P. Sterba (Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1994), p. 488.

9. Cf. Louis G. Lombardi, "Inherent Worth, Respect, and Rights," 5 (1983): 257-270.

10. David Oderberg, (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), p. 101.

11. For example, Taylor, op. cit.

12. Aristotle, III.4.

13. See Joel Wallman, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), especially chapters 5 and 6.

14. Cf. Richard J. Connell, (Edina, Minnesota: Bellwether Press, 1981), pp. 87-93; John Haldane, "The Source and Destination of Thought," in ed. Paul Helm (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000); Mortimer Adler, (New York: Macmillan, 1990); Russell Pannier and Thomas D. Sullivan, "The Mind-Marker," in , ed. Roy Abraham Varghese (New York: Peter Lang, 2000); James F. Ross, "Immaterial Aspects of Thought," 89 (1992): 136-150.

15. Mortimer Adler noted that, upon extended observation of other animals and of human beings, what would first strike one is the immense uniformity in mode of living among other animals, in contrast with the immense variety in modes of liv ing and customs among human beings. See Mortimer Adler, op. cit.

16. Cf. Roger Scruton, (New York: The Free Press, 1986).

17. This point is developed in James B. Reichmann, (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2000), chapter 2; see also John Campbell, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1994).

18. Lynne Rudder Baker, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), chapter 3; John Campbell, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1994).

19. Cf. Robert Kane, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).

20. Hence the position we are proposing is an incompatibilist view of free choice. Having alternate possibilities, that is, the ability to will otherwise, is essential to free choice and moral responsibility. It seems to us that the Frankfurt alleged counterexamples (proposed to disprove the principle of alternate possibilities) are not genuine counterexamples. In these alleged counterexamples there is a first agent who deliberates and decides, but there is a second, more powerful agent who in some way monitors the first agent and is ready and able to cause the first agent to do the act desired by the second agent if the first agent begins to will or perform otherwise than the desired outcome. It turns out, however (on the imagined scenario), that the first agent decides on his own to do the act that the second agent was ready to compel him to do. So, according to advocates of the Frankfurt examples, the first agent acted freely, was morally responsible, and yet could not have willed or acted otherwise. See Harry Frankfurt, "Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibilities," 66 (1969): 829-839. For a recent defense of this approach, see John Martin Fischer and Mark Ravizza, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). The problem is that the monitoring device, however it is imagined, will be unable to alert the second agent that the first agent is about to, or has begun to, act otherwise than the second agent plans. The act of willing is not determinate prior to its occurrence and so cannot be known before it occurs. And once it has occurred, it is too late to prevent it. (This was the ground for Aquinas's position that not even God can know a future contingent precisely as future, that is, as it exists in its causes, but he can know it only as it is in act-yet, since God is not in time, what is future with respect to us is not future with respect to God. See St. Thomas Aquinas, , Pt. I, q. 14, a. 13.) The second agent could prevent the physical, external action carrying out the choice, but the act of will is free and undetermined even if the external behavior executing the choice is prevented. Although his argument against the Frankfurt examples is not precisely the one presented here, an article that overlaps somewhat with this argument is: Paul A. Woodward, "Why Frankfurt Examples Beg the Question," 33 (2002): 540-547.

21. A more extended argument can be found in Joseph M. Boyle, Jr., Germain Grisez, and Olaf Tollefsen, (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976); see also Peter van Inwagen, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986); and Peter van Inwagen, "Free Will Remains a Mystery," in , ed. Robert Kane (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 158-170.

22. The argument here is indebted to Thomas Aquinas. See, e.g., I-II, q. 10, aa. 1-2.

23. This claim is derived from Thomas Aquinas and has been developed by Thomists and Aristotelians of various types. It is not necessary here to assume one particular development of that view against others. We need only the point that the basic principles of practical reason come from an insight-which may be interpreted in various ways-that what is to be pursued, what is worth pursuing, is what is fulfilling or perfective of me and others like me. For more on this see: Germain Grisez, Joseph Boyle, and John Finnis, "Practical Principles, Moral Truth and Ultimate Ends," 33 (1988): 99-151; John Finnis, Joseph M. Boyle, Jr., Germain Grisez, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), chapters 9-11; John Finnis, (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1983); John Finnis, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998); Timothy D. J. Chappell, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998); David S. Oderberg, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2000); Ralph McInerny, (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1992) and Mark C. Murphy, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002).

24. The argument presented here is similar to the approaches found in the following authors: Louis G. Lombardi, op. cit.; Michael Goldman, "A Transcendental Defense of Speciesism," 35 (2001): 59-69; and William J. Zanardi, "Why Believe in the Intrinsic Dignity and Equality of Persons?" 14 (1998): 151-168.

25. The position that the criterion for full moral worth cannot be an accidental attribute, but is the rational that is, being a specific type of substance, is defended in Patrick Lee, "The Pro-Life Argument from Substantial Identity: A Defense," 18 (2004): 249-263. See also Dean Stretton, "Essential Properties and the Right to Life: A Response to Lee," (18) 2004: 264-282, and Patrick Lee, "Substantial Identity and the Right to Life: A Rejoinder to Dean Stretton," in 21 (2007): 93-97. 26 Dean Stretton, op. cit.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

  • We're Hiring!
  • Help Center

paper cover thumbnail

Human Dignity and the Image of God—A Review Essay

Profile image of John Wright

Related Papers

Steve Fuller

human dignity reflection essay

Religious Studies Review

Jens Zimmermann

Peter Singer noted in Practical Ethics that our traditional views on the value of human life stand as a historical anomaly. Though it is "a product of Christianity", our secular age has made it "now possible to think about these issues without assuming the Christian moral framework that has, for so long, prevented any fundamental reassessment."1 My goal here is threefold: I will examine Aristotle's metaphysics and morals of human dignity, demonstrate how the Christian tradition eventually fashioned his reasoning into a natural law formulation of dignity, and how the dominant materialist narrative of the secular age has endangered the traditional conception of human dignity. My conclusion is simple - if nature is devoid of telos or teleology, there are serious challenges to dignifying human life in a purely physical and amoral universe.

Philosophy Journal

Randall A Poole

Humanismus und Soziologie

American Humanism is a philosophy that tries to unite the value spheres of the good and the true, thus superseding religion as a then-defunct value sphere. But the strategy of reducing the social differentiation of value spheres by identifying one with the other is also being pursued from the religious side through movements like creationism and Christian Science. The fact that the value orientations represented in the Humanist movement proved to be rather stable implies that the conflict American Humanism has been engaged in throughout the 20th century is a conflict about the relation of the religious value sphere to other value spheres, the most important of which is the “intellectual sphere”. Weber states that “[t]he tension between religion and intellectual knowledge definitely comes to the fore wherever rational, empirical knowledge has consistently worked through to the disenchantment of the world and its transformation into a causal mechanism”.80 This definition, and the opposition towards religion included in it, fits both the Humanist and the sociological positions treated in this paper. This, then, is the reason for the commonalities pointed out before, but it explains also the differences between the two. Humanists can be defined as those members of the intellectual sphere who attempt to show that the rational treatment of the world as a causal mechanism can assume part of the function of the religious value sphere. In Weber’s terms, American Humanism is about an inner-worldly reenchantment of the world. From this perspective, the dynamics of the conflict between Humanism and religion can be stated in a clear fashion: Insofar as the Humanists regard religion as a legitimate contender for their claims to an ethical interpretation of the world, they tend to frame their position in a way that sets itself apart from anything religious. This is the case for the Secular Humanist Declaration. However, when Humanists perceive religion as being in crisis, they tend to formulate their project as one of functional integration of the religious in the value sphere from which they regard the world, thus adopting its functional replacement. This is clearly the case for Dewey’s and Huxley’s work.

Andrea Palk

In recent decades, recourse to notions of human dignity has increased extensively within the field of bioethics. In particular, the notion has been utilised in arguments that seek to constrain a variety of biotechnological endeavours, examples of which include human cloning and transhumanism. In this regard, transhumanism is frequently described as an affront to human dignity in a manner that appears to be aimed at halting the possibility of further debate. The efficacy of the concept of human dignity has itself, however, been questioned. Criticisms include its ambiguous nature and thus the lack of adequate definition by those who utilise it, its supposedly religious undertones as well as the fact that it may be used to argue for diametrically opposing positions within the same argument, due to the existence of distinct and conflicting interpretations. In this paper, I briefly discuss the aims of the transhumanist movement and explicate the concept of human dignity in order to assess one of the most renowned dignity arguments that has been lodged against transhumanism, namely, the argument of the bioconservative thinker Leon Kass. In addition, I discuss the counter-argument of the transhumanist Nick Bostrom. These findings have implications for the concept's efficacy to adjudicate the complex ethical conundrums posed, not only by transhumanism, but in the bioethics arena in general.

Ecumenical Review

Jung Mo Sung

In a modern and secularized world, churches and religious groups that fight in the public sphere for social justice justify these actions in the name of defending human rights. This has been the path taken to express in non-religious language what they understand to be a God-given mission. Based on the distinction between civil rights, political rights, and social rights, which make up the set of human rights, this article analyzes the relationship between the notion of religious mission and the struggle for human rights; how neoliberal ideology, in an anti-humanist perspective, criticizes the notion of social rights and social justice with the denial of any human right above the laws of the market; and the challenges that this neoliberal ideology poses for the justification of the social and political action of religious groups and institutions in the contemporary globalized world with a growing post/ anti-humanist culture.

Thomas K Johnson

International Journal of Systematic Theology

Ryan Klassen

Prabha Panth , Rahul Shastri

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

mahassen sakni

Valentyn Stetsyuk

David A Fisher

Anne Phillips

Kasım Küçükalp

Matthew Petrusek

Christopher Insole

Emma Langley

Tone (Tony) Svetelj

Henk Manschot

The Heythrop Journal

John SULLIVAN

Jesudas Athyal

Journal of Catholic Legal Studies

Piero Tozzi

Louvain Studies

David Kirchhoffer

Joerg Rieger

Open Peer Commentary, American Journal of Bioethics (10:7) pp. 63-66

John Basl , Ronald Sandler

Medical Anthropology Quarterly

michael andres garay jimenez

Kendall Soulen

Alexander Sieber

Randall Bush

Philosophy in Review

Jason Costanzo

RELATED TOPICS

  •   We're Hiring!
  •   Help Center
  • Find new research papers in:
  • Health Sciences
  • Earth Sciences
  • Cognitive Science
  • Mathematics
  • Computer Science
  • Academia ©2024

Logo

Brill | Nijhoff

Brill | Wageningen Academic

Brill Germany / Austria

Böhlau

Brill | Fink

Brill | mentis

Brill | Schöningh

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

V&R unipress

Open Access

Open Access for Authors

Transformative Agreements

Open Access and Research Funding

Open Access for Librarians

Open Access for Academic Societies

Discover Brill’s Open Access Content

Organization

Stay updated

Corporate Social Responsiblity

Investor Relations

Policies, rights & permissions

Review a Brill Book

 
 
 

Author Portal

How to publish with Brill: Files & Guides

Fonts, Scripts and Unicode

Publication Ethics & COPE Compliance

Data Sharing Policy

Brill MyBook

Ordering from Brill

Author Newsletter

Piracy Reporting Form

Sales Managers and Sales Contacts

Ordering From Brill

Titles No Longer Published by Brill

Catalogs, Flyers and Price Lists

E-Book Collections Title Lists and MARC Records

How to Manage your Online Holdings

LibLynx Access Management

Discovery Services

KBART Files

MARC Records

Online User and Order Help

Rights and Permissions

Latest Key Figures

Latest Financial Press Releases and Reports

Annual General Meeting of Shareholders

Share Information

Specialty Products

Press and Reviews

 
   
   
   
   

Share link with colleague or librarian

Stay informed about this journal!

  • Get New Issue Alerts
  • Get Advance Article alerts
  • Get Citation Alerts

Concepts and Dimensions of Human Dignity in the Christian Tradition

This paper investigates the extent to which Christian tradition can be used to support human dignity and human rights in contemporary society. It explores the Christian tradition for ideas that correspond to the four main dimensions of human dignity: anthropological, moral, legal, and practical. It examines how these dimensions relate to the two main Christian perspectives that define human dignity, namely the imago Dei paradigm and dignity of the human soul or person. Concluding observations demonstrate that the corresponding Christian ideas offer a solid foundation for developing a strong Christian narrative and engagement in support of human dignity and human rights. However, an analysis of the two dominating concepts also indicates that a reception that excludes the universal aspect of the imago Dei paradigm can endanger a full acceptance of human dignity and human rights. Therefore, it is necessary to continue existing ecumenical efforts to create a complementary reading of the two traditions.

  • 1 Introduction

Although scholars have demonstrated a lack of direct influence of Christian Churches on the formulation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is acknowledged that the Christian tradition forms part of the longer tradition on human dignity and human rights. In addition, faith traditions are gradually regarded as important for maintaining and supporting basic human insights and societal values that a secular state cannot produce itself. 1 This general claim can also be applied to human dignity and human rights. Both need support at the level of acknowledgement, personal practice, argumentative support and legal codification, as well as supporting narratives. 2 The Christian tradition provides a narrative and history that implicitly supports and justifies human dignity and human rights, even though these have been obscured, and even suppressed, at times throughout that tradition. This contribution sets out to review some aspects of the Christian tradition with regard to human dignity, human rights, and their interrelationship, and searches for aspects that can contribute to contemporary discussions on human dignity.

In this endeavour, we must be aware of the fact that human dignity and human rights in their modern understanding are not identical with what we can find in a tradition which reaches back in time for more than 2000 years. Konrad Hilpert remarks that we should not speak of identical elements in Christian tradition, but of “corresponding ideas and intentions”. 3 From the outset, I acknowledge that this overview is not comprehensive and can only highlight some aspects of the Christian tradition that demonstrate its contributions to these discussions. 4

  • 2 Contemporary Dimensions of Human Dignity as a Hermeneutical Background

In order to explore the Christian tradition and its relevance for societal, philosophical, and ethical discourse on human dignity, we begin by focusing more on the contemporary context and concerns than historical context and concerns. What, then, are the main concerns in contemporary discussions on human dignity? In short, we can find four dominant dimensions of human dignity that are distinct but related. These dimensions are: first , human dignity as an anthropological principle signifying the intrinsic worth of human beings; second , human dignity as a moral principle, namely as the foundation of morality, moral rights, and duties; third , human dignity as a legal principle, namely as a formal or material basis for the legislation of human rights; and fourth , human dignity as a practical principle, namely as the object and aim of a practice-oriented virtue ethics or normative ethics (e.g., bioethics). Human dignity, then, encompasses the realms of anthropology, moral rights and obligations, human rights in their legal interpretation, and moral practice. Before exploring the historical context and concerns of the Christian tradition and its implications for understanding the four dimensions of human dignity, I first briefly explain those dimensions.

(1) Human dignity as a fundamental anthropological principle expresses the idea that human beings have an ontological quality with moral implications that is inseparable from the definition of the human being. It consists of a worth that is an intrinsic characteristic of every individual human person, which often is explained in relationship to the special position of human beings in comparison to non-human creatures.

(2) Human dignity as a moral principle in its relationship to moral rights and duties refers to human dignity as a moral quality that entitles humans to be treated by others with respect (2a – passive dimension ), which finds its expression in negative moral rights, e.g. not to be deprived of one’s life. On the other hand, there is a corresponding moral duty, namely, to act according to one’s dignity, which means to respect other people’s rights, e.g., their right to life (2b – active dimension ).

(3) Human dignity as a foundational principle of legal rights presupposes that human dignity is intrinsically linked to moral rights and that from these moral rights some fundamental negative legal rights can be deduced 5 , namely such aspects as the right to life, not to be tortured, or held in slavery, which are included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 6

(4) Human dignity as a part of moral practice is based on the practical insight that realizing human dignity needs to be put into practice in everyday life. This dimension is a further specification of the active dimension (2b). That human beings can live in a dignified manner is dependent, in large part, on many personal and social factors and the way in which we construct social relationships. In this sense, promoting the dignity of others is an aim of personal practice ; this practical aim concentrates on the potential effects on human dignity by shaping social structures and envisaging the impact of concrete actions, e.g., in the context of nursing homes.

All these dimensions ignite extensive philosophical and social debates and merit in depth study. 7 In this paper, however, the four dimensions only serve as a hermeneutical point of departure to discover similar concerns in the history of Christianity.

  • 3 The Universal Anthropological Principle of the Imago Dei Paradigm

Human dignity as an anthropological principle is usually identified with the biblical paradigm of imago Dei in current Christian ethical arguments, that is the biblical understanding of the human being as created in the image (Hebrew: selem ) and likeness (Hebrew: demut ) of God (Genesis 1:26–27). This statement is very important because it can only be found in three passages of one book in the Hebrew Bible which are situated closely together (Genesis 1:26–27; 5:1; 9:6). These passages do not, however, specifically state human dignity . Therefore, some interpretation regarding the semantics and the ancient context is needed to demonstrate their identification with this concept.

According to biblical scholars, these references have as interpretative background the process of coming to understand that human beings should not make any representations of God, any statues . Rather, the human being himself/herself is God’s statue , i.e., God’s representative on earth. The relationship between original and image expresses an immediate relationship between human beings and God – there are no intermediary beings between them. 8 Instead, humans themselves are connected with both earth and heaven. 9 They enable God’s presence, they are a “living statue” (Hebrew: selem ). 10

This privileged place establishes the intrinsic difference from other creatures because nothing else can represent God, and it conveys an ontological hierarchy of terrestrial beings, because human beings come closest to God in the way they are created. 11 The sacred stature of human beings is therefore strongly connected with their responsibility. Humans are told to participate in God’s stewardship over creation and therefore have an active and responsible role (Gen 1:27). 12 The textual addition and likeness , however, hints at the difference between God and human beings and shows that though being closely related to each other, God and human beings are not the same. 13

With regard to the oriental context, the distinctive difference of the biblical text is that it confers the high position to all human beings, and not only to wise persons, e.g., kings. 14 Rather, whoever has the image of a human being is a representative of God. 15 This universal understanding has been explained as a result of social “democratization” happening around 500 BC , during the exile of the people of Israel. The promise that God gave to David (2 Samuel 7:12–16) is re-interpreted as a promise to all people: because of God’s universality, it extends beyond the chosen people of Israel and encompasses all humankind. 16 The protection of the life of every person is the logical consequence of the imago Dei paradigm , which also excludes natural hierarchies among human beings. 17 The text by itself makes a universal statement without any restrictions regarding origin, sex, or religious belief. 18

Apart from that, it is important to note that the imago Dei paradigm refers to the whole human being, not to some specific properties as “the exterior appearance, the upright corporal position or the shape of the body or mental capacities as freedom of will and intellect”. 19 The question of which feature of the human being warrants the designation imago Dei “misses the point” of the Hebrew text. 20

Without using the term dignity , the biblical text already brings some of the elements of our contemporary understanding of human dignity to the fore. The text refers to its universal, anthropological, and ontological dimensions, which express that all human beings, all members of the species, do enjoy a privileged position in the hierarchy between God and the rest of creation, and equality amongst themselves (1). Secondly, from this privileged position a moral right and duty to mutual respect and protection of life is deduced (2a, b). Human beings should exercise their personal freedom and responsibility within their relationships (2). The text could also be interpreted as stipulating the creation of laws and possible applied-ethical aspects by evoking human beings’ stewardship regarding non-human creation (3, 4). In the biblical understanding, all these elements are connected and cannot be separated from each other. The danger exists that we read too much of our contemporary understanding of human dignity into the passage of the imago Dei paradigm . Yet comparisons to the oriental context provide evidence that the text confirms the fundamental equality of all human beings and that all are endowed with responsibility. It is therefore consistent with the intention of the text, when it is used today to support the philosophical and political claims for the universality of human dignity and basic human rights.

One precautionary comment needs to be made regarding the uniqueness of the universal account of human dignity made in the text of Genesis. As has been noted, the universal aspect of the imago Dei paradigm characterizes the Hebrew text in its ancient regional context and has become an irrevocable ingredient of Christian anthropology. However, this important insight should not make us conclude that only the Hebrew Bible provided a universal anthropological idea of the prominent role of human beings in the context of creation. A comparative study of cultures and texts might bring similar meanings of creation accounts in other cultures and texts to the fore. 21

  • 4 Human Beings as Image of Christ: the Distinct Fellowship Model in the New Testament Letters

In the New Testament, a major shift occurs regarding the imago Dei paradigm , which originates in the intention to accommodate Christ in the relationship between human beings and God. There are seven passages where the word image (Greek: eikon ) is used to designate the relationship between human beings and God. All of them are located in the letters of St. Paul and in the letter to the Colossians. For both authors, Christ is the true image of God (Greek: eikon tou theou ; 2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:15) to whom Christians should orient themselves. They are Christ’s image (Romans 8:29: image of the son of God) or they are transformed to God’s image (Colossians 3:9–10) or to Christ’s image through the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:18). Christians are created from dust as are all human beings, but through faith in Christ they are created as spiritual beings in his image (1 Corinthians 15:49). Through Christ human beings are created anew; their earthly lives are transformed and they become the image of God. St. Paul warns, however, that if they turn away from God, they can lose the quality of being God’s image (Romans 1:23).

The New Testament passages show a dynamic and spiritual understanding of what it means to be an image of God; they refer to the transforming power of the Holy Spirit that creates a new quality in the human being, and reflect to a much lesser degree the aspect of “natural” creation. Apart from that, Paul uses the expression image of God to signify an eschatological quality that human beings will acquire through resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:49; Romans 8:29; 2 Corinthians 3:18). 22 The question arises: how should this shift in the understanding of the imago Dei be evaluated? Looking at the context of the letters, we can observe that they are speaking to particular Christian communities. Therefore, the fellowship paradigm overlays the general anthropological and universal aspects in Paul’s account of the imago Dei paradigm . However, it is theologically challenging to interpret Paul’s manoeuvring between his emphasis on Jesus Christ being the universal redeemer and centre of fellowship, and his recognition of the inherent moral capacity of all human beings who are endowed with conscience and can fulfil God’s law (Romans 2:14). It seems that, with respect to moral standards, Paul does not draw an absolute line of demarcation between the Christian communities and pagan multicultural societal backgrounds. 23 This overlap of moral standards warrants Breitsameter’s comment: “societal obligations are fulfilled by works, religious communication is marked by a discourse about grace.” 24

We can conclude that Paul recognizes two types of universality. First, he shares with the imago Dei paradigm that universality is necessary because it is based on the monotheistic God who relates to all human beings. 25 But, while in the imago Dei paradigm the consequence is equality by creation, and therefore by nature, Paul interprets nature as fallen and redeemed by Christ, and man’s status before God as one that is affirmed by acting according to the law (the Tora) with the help of grace. Second, Paul refers to the moral capacity and obligation as universal. In his eschatological view, however, only God is able to judge who has acted righteously. Paul’s reference to inborn moral knowledge does not serve to found a natural law theory, but rather to show that it is not enough to know the law; what counts is to knowingly or unknowingly fulfil it. 26

We can summarize that already in New Testament times we detect the origins of a bifurcation of universal and particular approaches to the imago Dei paradigm . Though in both accounts, a monotheistic vision of God for all human beings forms the background, the first pathway, initiated by the imago Dei paradigm that relates to creation will be developed further along the path of natural reason and natural law theory, and can lead also to engaging in legal issues. The second way, related to the idea of redemption, emphasizes the re-creation in the spirit of those who follow the gospel of Christ, and therefore offers a particular model of Christian fellowship. It will lead to reflections about the interior dimension of the human being seeking God, which more often relate to the term dignity . This is surprising because in today’s understanding of human dignity and human rights, we connect human dignity in the first place to equality and intrinsic worth, which are expressed more directly in the imago Dei paradigm , though it does not use the word dignity. However, when we look at recent philosophical discussions about how human dignity can be described more particularly, we find ideas that are very similar to the ones originating in Paul’s fellowship and interiority paradigm, which will lead to the recognition of the individual human person.

These observations already make clear that the two ways do not always follow separate directions. Not only will the development of religious introspection in the Christian faith tradition pave the way for a universal philosophical understanding of the human subject and person, but also the natural law paradigm will change its emphasis from time to time, e.g., when some authors argue that its foundation is not reason alone, but God’s law, and the two ways will intersect. Nevertheless, the differences between the two concepts, the natural law paradigm and the human person paradigm were perceived clearly because depending on different emphases on elements of Christian anthropology and biblical hermeneutics, the Christian denominations that developed along the history of Christianity also referred more strongly to one of the two ways. 27

  • 5 Introspection, Equality, and Universal Humanity: Christians’ Experience of Human Dignity During the Roman Empire

In Early Christianity, several developments took place. Out of these developments emerged writings that reflect the particular Christian interpretation of human dignity, as we have seen it in Paul’s letters, other writings witness a concept of human dignity based on religious introspection that focuses on some capacities of human beings, others again develop the existent universal concept of the imago Dei paradigm. 28 In general, Christianity in the East developed more the introspection-oriented concept, while Christianity in the West developed more strongly the universal concept.

An important factor for the development of the insight into human dignity in Christianity was Christians’ experience in the political and social context of the Roman Empire. During religious persecution, Christians felt that though they might lose their bodily life, they would save their soul and have eternal life when they remained faithful to their consciences and religious beliefs. They recognized that human dignity had an interior character, and contrasted it with the exterior, social honour, to which the Latin term dignitas referred. 29 Against the background of such a socio-hierarchical understanding of dignity, Cyprian of Carthago (ca. 200–258) uses the term dignity to emphasize the inner worth of the martyrs which corresponds to their eternal glory. 30 Similarly, the acts of the Christian martyrs refer to St. Paul’s eschatological account of the imago Dei (2 Corinthians 3:18) where glory is promised to those who are faithful to Christ’s command. 31 In classical Latin the term dignity neither referred to an interior quality of a human being, nor was there a universal concept in the sense that dignity was a characteristic of all human beings. Only in one single remark, Cicero refers to the term dignity in the sense of a property of all human beings. 32 The experience of Christians, therefore, inaugurated a change in the meaning of the term. Threat of martyrdom produced insight into the intrinsic worth of the persecuted, but this insight was addressed in the language of faith.

Similarly, in the life of the Christian communities, equal status and disregard for social differences were important values. The Christian communities were open to all social classes and thereby expressed their conviction of the equal dignity of human beings. 33 As Rayner describes, “Instead of being a Stoic fragment of the Divine or a conglomeration of fortuitous atoms, man was raised to the dignity of son and joined heir with the ‘Father of lights’ […].” 34 Faith promoted equal treatment of all, however, without requiring legal guarantees (4).

When Christianity was finally tolerated by Galerius in 311, the Roman teacher of rhetoric, Lactantius (250–325), who had witnessed religious persecution, took the opportunity to embed Christian anthropology, the command to love one’s neighbour (Mark 12:31), and the Decalogue into the framework of Roman natural law theory and Ciceronian philosophical eclecticism. In his introductory book to Christianity, the Divine Institutes , Lactantius offers an ethical approach based on the concept of a universal humaneness , which means a humanitarian attitude, to the emperor Constantine and the educated Romans. 35 As a result of his ethics, Lactantius wrote against capital punishment and the killing of new-born children, arguing that human beings are made in the image of God and are, therefore, sacrosanct animals. 36 While he knew that ethics depended on rational insight and moral instruction, he also referred to personal and religious freedom as logical pre-requisites that cannot be ruled by law: “True religion is an expression of one’s inner convictions and devotion. And since those cannot be forced, true religion cannot be forced.” 37

Lactantius’ melding Christian faith and Roman philosophy and law, therefore, strengthened two key elements of Christian anthropology: First, through a universal claim of the intrinsic worth of human beings based on creation and on natural law theory (1), in combination with the obligation to treat human beings according to their humanity and to respect their right to life (2a,b). Second, by introducing a more transcendental-like understanding of personal freedom as a necessary condition for religious self-determination, understood in the deep sense of conscientious moral decision-making in the light of faith and morality (2).

In the Greek tradition, the interior aspects of human dignity stood at the centre. Influenced by Greek philosophy, Christianity shared the view that human beings were placed in an intermediate ontological position between God and material things. 38 The soul, which has the capacity for grasping the eternal, stood at the centre of attention. Accordingly, Gregory of Nyssa (335–394) explains that the human being lives at the frontier in so far as he or she has the freedom to develop himself/herself towards the material, or the immaterial. 39 Therefore, Gregory compares the human soul to a king because it enjoys the capacity of self-governing. 40 This capacity, which is expressed by virtue, immortality, righteousness, an inquiring mind, and understanding, relates human nature to divine nature as its image and enjoys the same dignity. 41 In very similar terms, Gregory of Nazianz (329–390) describes that the need to decide one’s direction in life has been a characteristic of human beings already in the moment of creation: “To be created is to have to make a choice.” 42

In both accounts of the Greek fathers of the Church, being an image of God is not described as natural in the sense of having intrinsic worth as a member of the species, but rather as natural in the sense of being endowed with a rational soul, which is more concretely characterised as the dynamic of free self-determination. A tension between the capacity to be an image of God and the moral challenge to live up to one’s capacity (2b) becomes evident. In contrast to the imago Dei paradigm , the moral dimension is not focussed primarily on other beings, but rather on the self-education of the soul. Based on Greek philosophy, Greek authors posed the question of what exactly can be described as divine in human beings. This leads to interiorizing the concept of the imago Dei paradigm .

In the West, the most important source for later mediaeval discussions about how the human soul resembles God is St. Augustine’s (354–430) explanation that God’s image and likeness are reflected in memory, intellect and will (or love) 43 of the human soul. Regarding the inter-relationship of being, understanding and will ( esse, nosse, velle ) human beings are similar to the Holy Trinity. The image of God is present in all human beings as capacity to capture God and can only be obscured, but not removed. 44 While plants and animals have a likeness ( similitudo ) to God which is “transmitted through reproduction”, human beings receive the divine image ( imago ) “by the direct, spiritual act of God. The spiritual nature of this act lies in the twofold fact that the image is of God (Spirit), and the image is found in the mind, not the body.” 45

In this way, Augustine introduces a difference between the bodily nature (organized via the “ rationes seminales ”) and the spiritual nature of man. As Drewer explains, “The soul exists in a type of reflective immediacy in which its primordial identity is given to it from that which the soul is not (i.e., God). This leads to the paradoxical conclusion that the soul is most itself when it is least its own.” 46 However, Augustine does not link these considerations to the term of human dignity. 47 Not human nature as such, not even the rational nature of the human soul, but the capacity to host the divine spirit makes human beings true images of God. In Augustine’s account, the imago Dei paradigm receives a transcendental foundation.

However, we cannot conclude that the development of interiorizing the imago Dei paradigm dominated theology once it developed. The natural law approach and theological arguments are used closely together, e.g., when Ambrose of Milan (339–397) develops the idea of a society in which everybody cooperates and has the same dignity 48 and argues with reference to the life of Christ that dignity does not depend on exterior honour but is present in situations of poverty and persecution. 49 Leo the Great (ca. 400–461) resumes the theological explanation used by Paul that human beings were created in the dignity of their nature, which was destroyed by Adam, but rebuilt by Christ. 50 Towards the end of the patristic period, Gregory the Great (540–604) uses the theological argument of incarnation to support an observation that he makes about natural law. By nature, he says, all human beings are born free, and only by the law of nations, they can be made slaves. From the perspective of the incarnation of Christ, slaves should be set free because the purpose of Christ’s incarnation was to liberate human beings from servitude. 51 Gregory’s comment shows how Christian faith is used to defend a universal equality of human beings with societal consequences, even if Gregory does not go as far as postulating a change of the law of nations. Christological arguments are used in support of universalist philosophical ideas of human beings. At the same time, or not much later, an offertory prayer of the Christian liturgy, which was used until the Second Vatican Council, refers to the human substance, and not to nature, which is founded in dignity by creation and re-founded again in Christ. 52 The concepts of imago Dei paradigm , human dignity, and the human person are complementary, not contradictory, concepts.

  • 6 Mediaeval Accounts: the Individual Person and the Human Soul as Image of God

The philosophers and theologians of the Middle Ages make different philosophical and theological ancient traditions available for modern times. As early as in the writings of the circle of Alcuin of York (735–804), the condition of man and the imago Dei paradigm are explained with reference to the dignity of human beings and they integrate many of the dimensions that had been developed in the first centuries. 53 Human dignity is illustrated by the similarity between the activities of the human soul and the Holy Trinity, but also as the particular capacity of human beings to gain knowledge of God and to love God. For Alcuin, God and man are related to such an extent that whoever does not love other human beings does not love God, and whoever knows the human being cannot not know God. 54 The emphasis on the soul as image of God, therefore, brings the transcendent dimensions of the human soul to the fore.

Mediaeval texts also reflect on which capacities mirror God. In this sense, Hugh of Saint Victor (c. 1096–1141) already mentions the main two dimensions: he sees reason as image and love as likeness of God. 55 Reason, in its various medieval accounts, can refer to intellectual virtue and the capability of self-reflection, to the mystical path towards a reunion with God, to practical reasoning and moral responsibility. 56 For Thomas Aquinas, human dignity expresses the very purpose of human life, namely, a life according to reason. 57 He mirrors the moral obligation to live up to one’s inherent human dignity in a negative way when he argues that human beings can lose their dignity if they do not act according to their reason and freedom. 58 Thus, the loss of dignity means the failure of not living up to it. 59

Also ternary schemes are used to include theoretical and practical reason and will or love. In the case of Bonaventure (1221–74), the capacities of the human soul reflect God in the threefold structure of remembering, cognizing, and loving. 60 He extends the imago dei paradigm to combine three different layers of human dignity that had been explained in the past. He calls the ontological, universal dignity of the human soul, which originates in creation, God’s trace ( vestigium ); the dynamic soul that recognizes and loves God and participates in Him is the image of God ( imago Dei ); and, if human beings cooperate with God’s grace, they can even reach similarity ( similitudo ) with God. 61

Apart from reason and will, freedom is also seen as an expression of the imago Dei paradigm . For Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153), human dignity consists in the freedom of human beings, which makes them superior to other creatures and capable of ruling over them. 62 Also late mediaeval thinkers, such as William of Ockham, argue for universal respect of each other not by referring to nature, but to the freedom of each other’s will; “both acting morally and political authority presuppose the recognition of the freedom of others”. 63

Parallel to the imago Dei paradigm is the theory of the human person developed in light of the definition given by Boethius, namely, a person is an “individual substance of rational nature,” which was applied to God, angels, and humans. 64 This definition emphasized individuality, which was further explained as “incommunicable existence”, as “existing for oneself”, which has been said to provoke the ontological perspective of a “who” instead of a “what”. 65 In this sense, Alexander of Hales (1185–1245) “connects the notion of dignity with the concept of persons”. 66 Persons are said to be of highest dignity because they are moral beings (Alexander of Hales), because of their natural and moral dignity (Albertus Magnus), or because of their “self-governance ( dominium sui ), that is, independence in acting […], thinking and willing”, which makes human persons the “most perfect being in the whole of nature”. 67 Aquinas and, at the beginning of the Renaissance, Petrarca rank human beings higher than angels because they are able to shape the world. 68

To these approaches to the nature of human beings as persons, Aquinas adds reflections on the consequences for social living. Natural inclinations direct human beings’ striving for knowledge, but also for community. In this respect, he integrates the Aristotelian concept of the human being as a social and political being into medieval political theory. As Imbach summarizes, human beings are social beings to a degree that “every human is every other’s friend […] ‘by a certain general love’”. 69 However, upholding the idea of universal friendship does not prevent Aquinas from showing also some shortcomings with regard to the legal consequences of a universal understanding of morality and freedom. These limitations include the idea that the death penalty is justifiable with respect to the common good of society, or the belief that slavery can be deduced from natural law, which was partially based on the reception of Aristotle’s idea of “natural inequality amongst human beings”. 70

In the field of socio-political consequences of universal human dignity, arguments against making a political distinction between human beings who have full dignity or are full citizens, and those who are not, arose in the Late Middle Ages from diverse directions, namely from the area of mysticism and from natural law theory. Both areas are based on high regard for the rational capacity of human beings. Acting according to reason is evaluated as acting according to divine nature. 71 Political and legal consequences are discussed in the context of the Council of Constance. Paulus Wladimiri (1370–1434/36) interpreted the imago Dei paradigm as dignity by creation, which applies to all human beings. Since human beings are not entirely deprived from their dignity by original sin, the question whether the enemy is a Christian or not does not make a difference when it comes to the right to wage a war or not. 72 In his arguments, Wladimiri not only defends intrinsic dignity (1), but also holds that the right to life follows from personal human dignity (2a), and at the level of ius gentium , also equal rights of non-Christian states can be deduced (3). Equality of human persons (1) and freedom of religion (2) are regarded as fundamental principles determining the formulation of law.

  • 7 Later Renaissance and Early Modernity: a Dynamic Concept of Human Dignity Dominates

The Renaissance philosophers drew from ancient and mediaeval arguments while emphasizing human achievements. 73 Since they have a positive perspective on human beings’ capacities, they use the imago Dei and the incarnation paradigm for interpreting human beings. The fact that God became man shows the excellence of human beings, which exists especially in their way of understanding and acting. 74 However, towards the end of the fifteenth century, new as well as inherited problematic sides on the interpretation of human dignity become apparent. On the one hand, the late Renaissance philosopher Pico della Mirandola, by describing the self-creating power of human beings, depicts them as dynamic beings that push the boundaries of species. Because they possess “an unlimited capacity for growth and development” 75 , they can become divine if they use their intellectual powers, but they can also degrade to animals or to a vegetative level. 76 In this way, differences in equality between persons can be justified. 77

Also, the ancient idea of natural slavery was taken up in a discussion in Valladolid (1550–1555) about the rights of the indios . Even Bartolomé de las Casas (1484–1566), the strong voice against the classification of the indigenous people as natural slaves, applies a development model when he argues that the “indios” possess the capacity of reason, which makes them apt for religious education, yet makes the acquisition of full human dignity dependent on conversion to the Christian faith. 78 The development model applied by Pico della Mirandola obviously was still influential.

On the other hand, a different approach developed, which had mediaeval natural law theory as its source. The founder of the school of Salamanca, Francisco de la Vitoria (1483–1546), made a significant step forward towards a universalism with political consequences. He argues that the Aristotelian idea of natural slavery opposes the Christian idea that all human beings are created in the image of God. Vitoria also declares that all rights deducible from nature have validity for all human beings, without regard to their faith. 79 By referring to nature in the sense of species, and not to a development model of reason or will, he can develop a universal idea of human beings in the line of the imago Dei paradigm (1), and deduce legal rights that apply to everybody (3). As Hans Schelkshorn has shown, it needed the geographical and political extension of the European perspectives, especially with the discovery of the Americas, to promote a step-wise expansion of who counted politically and legally as a human being with dignity. 80

  • 8 The “Non-Religious” Use of the Concept of Human Dignity in Modernity

In the transition to Modernity, several elements contributed to a separation between the fields of theology, law, and philosophy. Natural law theory gained a non-religious outlook. Grotius and others argued “as if there was no God”, which meant at that time that religious ideas were accepted but not used in the public sphere. 81 The experience of the European confessional wars contributed to a focus on the weak sides of human beings. 82 Reformation theology lead to a division between the public sphere, in which reasoning and acting righteously were important, and the personal and private relationship to God, where dignity was interpreted as God’s free gift. 83 In this way, aspects of human dignity related to the imago Dei paradigm and natural law seemingly gained a history, which was independent of Christian religion.

These developments can explain why human dignity is not present in classical human rights declarations of the 18th century, nor is it present in many important treatises based on natural law. Only Samuel Pufendorf refers to the term. As Westerman has argued, Pufendorf begins with the weakness in the nature of human beings who can only reach their true nature with guidance from a law that is deduced from a “higher insight”. 84 Human dignity therefore is not intrinsic to human beings in the sense of being given by nature, but needs to be “reached” by dominating and overcoming fallible nature. Pufendorf uses the dynamic model of human dignity to explain why there is a difference between the (bad) reality of social inequality and the (good) idea of the human being that should guide one’s practice. 85 He portrays human dignity in its classical traits: equality of human beings, difference to animals because of the rational soul that has the capacity to understand and to make decisions (1, 2), duty to respect oneself, as well as the right to be respected by others (2a). 86 Pufendorf’s account of human dignity became very influential internationally because the abbreviated text version of his eight volume work, De jure naturae et gentium , was used as a text book in the Anglo-Saxon countries. 87

The idea of an intrinsic human dignity, however, was formulated in the field of philosophy. In his third formula of the Categorical imperative, Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) describes moral autonomy and relates it to the idea of human dignity, which he defines as “inner worth”. 88 In this way, Kant creates a philosophical interpretation of human dignity that unites the intrinsic meaning of human dignity with its active and passive dimensions. 89 Human dignity consists exactly in the capability of binding one’s free will to objective moral principles. Both aspects – moral rights and moral duties – are connected to a universal vision in Kant’s idea that the categorical imperative requires respect for every single person as an expression of humankind. 90

However, Kant’s philosophical account of the term did not meet immediately with a positive and wide reception. Especially in the Catholic realm, Kant initially was openly rejected because of his intent to develop an ethics without grounding it in a reference to God. 91 During Kant’s time, the term human dignity was used in public to denounce the social and economic states of affairs of the proletarian class as non-humane living conditions. 92 In addition, the socio-political application of Kant’s idea of a universal human dignity was also severely hampered by his theory of race. 93

These developments show that human dignity as moral category and the possibility of deducing human rights are discussed in public predominantly outside the theological field in political, legal, and philosophical contexts. 94 Due to different reasons, which also relate to the conflictual relationships of State and Church during these centuries, at least on the European continent, the Christian Churches did not take pioneering roles in modernizing the National States and pushing them to develop human rights. Rather, the Churches often adhered to hierarchical systems. 95 However, we must not forget that at a practical level, the practice of human dignity (4) was an important field for the Churches or engaged Church representatives. 96

  • 9 The Stimulating Effect of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

It is after World War II that the term dignity enters into the preamble and article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of December 10, 1948. 97 Menke and Pollmann suggest that the term human dignity came into play precisely because it was a neutral term and was not used predominantly by any of the diverse groups, such as Liberalism, Socialism, and Catholicism. 98 As a consequence, both terms – human dignity and human rights – conquer not only the public domain, but also re-conquer theology. French Protestantism interpreted the introduction of human rights as a secular expression of the Protestant idea of human dignity and, at least initially, welcomed the concept. 99 Also the Catholic Church, in spite of a long rejection, embraced rapidly the “consciousness of contemporary man” in the Second Vatican Council’s Dignitatis humanae (7.12.1965). 100 The Declaration argues that religious faith is founded in a free decision based on a personal search for truth, analogous to the freedom and judgment of conscience. This freedom that belongs intrinsically to the human person is therefore a precondition that the State must accept and which obliges the State to refrain from interfering in religious matters. 101 By making this remarkable turn away from the previous century’s understanding of moral conscience controlled by religious authority 102 , the Catholic Church thus takes a similar position that had already been proposed by Lactantius. It also interprets human dignity as a corner stone in the social teaching of the Church. 103 Within theology, conscience and practical reason, free action, and responsible moral self-determination, which are intrinsically related to a modern understanding of human dignity 104 , were widely accepted and used as a basis for engaging in ethical discussions.

  • 10 Concluding Observations

The idea that Christian Churches should strongly support human dignity and human rights yields many different tasks and challenges. Between the different Churches and confessions, it requires a broad inter-confessional effort, in which the aspects of human dignity that dominate the different Christian approaches to biblical interpretation and to tradition can be discussed and brought into a complementary relationship. 105 In this way, a mutually reinforcing viewpoint can be used to create a strong narrative. However, from this short overview, some challenges emerge.

A first challenge concerns the idea of human rights as a legal consequence of one of the two main concepts that define human dignity in the Christian tradition. The historical overview illustrates that the equality of human beings is an ingredient of the Judeo-Christian anthropological tradition of the imago Dei paradigm , which was elaborated especially in the framework of natural law theory. The universal dimension of human dignity became a crucial issue sporadically, e.g., in times of religious persecution during the Roman Empire, but it took a long time to deduce legal consequences from it. Still today, some aspects of some human rights are not yet fully shared by some Christian churches, which shows that the process of translating human dignity into human rights requires time and direction, because it presupposes an evolving and renewed interpretation of one’s own doctrine and faith tradition. The slow pace of interpretation in some Christian churches contradicts the driving force of the main messages of both concepts, universal equality of human beings and dignity of the human person.

The second challenge concerns the concept of human dignity, which is characterised by the reflection about who the human being exactly is and in tradition mainly refers to reflections about the human soul or the human person. Reason, self-reflection, self-determination, search for wisdom, transcendence, mystical union with God, language, sociability, moral responsibility, free will, and the capacity to shape the world, among other features, are characteristic of the human being and signs of excellence. It is obvious that founding human dignity in the moral capacity of the human being, which is one of the major philosophical approaches today, would be perceived as an important and fundamental dimension, but taken alone would present a certain limitation in light of the Christian tradition. One important additional dimension is the human capacity for transcendence, which is linked to an ultimate freedom of the person, of moral conscience, and of religion. There is something in human beings, created in the image and likeness of God, that is mysterious, just as God is mysterious, and therefore escapes exact description. Though some of the approaches related to this concept are particular because they relate directly to faith issues, the plurality of concepts developed in different stages of the history of Christianity may serve as verification that reductionist approaches to human beings are not compatible with the Christian tradition.

A third challenge is evident in the relationship between the two Christian perspectives, the imago Dei paradigm and human dignity. It is important to know that when only the second perspective (individual and personal approaches to human dignity) was taken into consideration, the danger occurred that some persons were excluded from having dignity – because of a different faith, fewer rational capacities, or a dynamic interpretation of the capacities of the soul. Therefore, this perspective needs the universal and intrinsic perspective of the imago Dei paradigm as a corrective. A particular understanding of human dignity, be it religious or secular, logically presupposes a universal understanding of human dignity, since particular expressions rest on the fundamental and universal right to express religious faith and personal beliefs. Without acknowledging first, the universal dimension of equality, the particular dimension of human dignity has no foundation. In this regard, the imago Dei paradigm , which relates to universality, intrinsic worth, and which, already in its origin, explicitly does not regard particular faith questions, cannot be replaced, but only complemented by other theological dimensions of human dignity.

This insight relates to the four dimensions of human dignity, which served as a hermeneutical key for our historical overview. In the historical examples, frequently the general anthropological insight (1) and the request for legal consequences (3) go together, whereas the individual understanding (2) and the practical virtue approach (4) form partners more often. Yet the two groups are mutually dependent on one another. When laws are made and practical strategies developed to help human beings flourish (3, 4), then this presupposes that we recognize an intrinsic dignity of the human being (1) and that we know who a human person is so that we know what can make him or her flourish (2). Even if for the sake of reducing complexity the four aspects can be separated, they ought to be regarded as operating in an interconnected hermeneutical background to create mutual plausibility.

To keep a connection between the universal and more formal concept of “the” human being and his or her rights, on the one hand, and the more detailed understanding of human persons, their needs and possibilities of living a dignified and fulfilling life on the other hand, is a necessary task of modern pluralistic societies and the global world. In this sense, this overview suggests that Christian theologies can contribute to this task by offering descriptions and analyses of the human person, their dignity, and rights. Even more urgent, it seems, can be the contribution of constructing overarching narratives, which can support both the universal claim of the intrinsic human dignity of all human beings, and the particular interest in the flourishing of the individual human person, and by providing these narratives legal, cultural, social, and religious support in our contemporary world.

Sigrid Müller teaches Theological Ethics at the Catholic Theological Faculty of the University of Vienna since 2007. Her research interests cover the history of Moral Theology, Bioethics and Fundamental Questions of Moral Theology. She co-edits (with Stephan Goertz) the book series “Studien der Moraltheologie. New Series” [Studies in Moral Theology. New Series] and (with Piotr Morciniec) the practice-oriented book series Bioethics in discussion . Among her most recent publications are Philosophie und Theologie im Spätmittelalter [Philosophy and Theology in the Late Middle Ages], and Werte im Beruf [Ethical Values in professional activities] (co-edited with Stephanie Höllinger and Bettina Baldt). She is currently working on a Short History of Moral Theology (together with Kerstin Schlögl-Flierl).

  • Bibliography

Acts of the Christian Martyrs . Introduction, texts and translations by Herbert Musurillo. Oxford : At the Clarendon Press , 1972 .

  • Search Google Scholar
  • Export Citation

Ambrosius : Exaemeron , in: Opera , Vol. 1,1 [1] . Ed. by Carolus Schenkl ( CSEL 32/1 [1] ). Prague/Vienna/Leipzig : F. Tempsky/G. Freytag , 1896 .

Aquinas , Thomas : Summa theologiae: Secunda secundae, 92–189 . Transl. by Laurence Shapcote ; ed. by John Mortensen and Enrique Alarcón . Lander, WY : The Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine , 2012 .

Aquinas , Thomas : Summa theologiae: Secunda secundae, 1–91 . Transl. by Laurence Shapcote ; ed. by John Mortensen and Enrique Alarcón . Green Bay, WI : The Aquinas Institute , 2017 .

Aquinas , Thomas : “ Quaestiones disputatae de veritate a quaestione XXV ad quaestionem XXVI. Textum Taurini 1953 editum et automato translatum a Roberto Busa SJ in taenias magneticas denuo recognovit Enrique Alarcón atque instruxit ”, 2019 , https://www.corpusthomisticum.org/qdv25.html#57078 ( date of last access: 19.03.2020 ).

Aquinas , Thomas : Summa Theologiae prima pars a quaestione XXVIII ad quaestionem XLIII. Textum Leoninum Romae 1888 editum et automato translatum a Roberto Busa SJ in taenias magneticas denuo recognovit Enrique Alarcón atque instruxit , 2019 , https://www.corpusthomisticum.org/sth1028.html#29676 ( date of last access: 19.03.2020 ).

Assmann , Aleida : Menschenrechte und Menschenpflichten. Schlüsselbegriffe für eine humane Gesellschaft . Vienna : Picus Verlag , 2018 .

Augustine : On the Trinity books 8–15 . Ed. by Gareth B. Matthews , Transl. by Stephen McKenna . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 2002 .

Barak , Aharon : Human Dignity. The Constitutional Value and the Constitutional Right . Translated from the Hebrew by Daniel Kayros . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 2015 .

Barr , James : “ The Image of God in the Book of Genesis – A Study of Terminology ”, in: Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 51 ( 1968/69 ), p. 11 – 26 .

Barth , Ulrich : “ Gottebenbildlichkeit und Menschenwürde. Überlegungen zu einem kulturellen Transformationsprozess ”, in: Rudolf Langthaler / Hubert Philipp Weber (ed.): Evolutionsbiologie und Schöpfungsglaube. Neue Perspektiven in der Debatte . Göttingen : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht , 2013 , p. 333 – 360 .

Bayer , Oswald : “ Martin Luther’s Concept of Human Dignity ”, in: Marcus Düwell / Jens Braarvig / Roger Brownsword / Dietmar Mieth (ed.): The Cambridge Handbook of Human Dignity. Interdisciplinary Perspectives . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 2014 , p. 101 – 107 .

Behr , John : “ The Rational Animal: A Rereading of Gregory of Nyssa’s De hominis opificio ”, in: Journal of Early Christian Studies 7 ( 2 / 1999 ), p. 219 – 247 .

Bernard of Clairvaux : Concerning Grace and Free Will . Translated, with an introduction, synopsis and notes by Watkin W. Williams . New York, NY : The McMillan Company , 1920 [e-book: Aeterna Press, 2014].

Bilaterale Arbeitsgruppe der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz und der Vereinigten Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche Deutschlands : Gott und die Würde des Menschen . Paderborn/Leipzig : Bonifatius , 2017 .

Böckenförde , Ernst-Wolfgang : Staat, Gesellschaft, Freiheit. Studien zur Staatstheorie und zum Verfassungsrecht . Frankfurt a.M. : Suhrkamp , 1976 .

Boethius , Anicius Manlius Severinus : Contra Eutychen et Nestorium/Against Eutyches and Nestorius , in: The Theological Tractates; the Consolation of Philosophy . Ed. by H.F. Stewart , E.K. Rand and S.J. Tester . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press , 1973 , p. 72 – 129 .

Bonaventura : Itinerarium mentis in deum , in: Opera omnia , Vol. 5 . Ed. PP. Collegiii a S. Bonaventura . Quaracchi : Collegium S. Bonaventurae , 1891 , p. 293 – 316 .

Bonaventura : Sermones selecti de rebus theologicis , in: Opera Omnia , Vol. 5 . Ed. PP. Collegiii a S. Bonaventura . Quaracchi : Collegium St. Bonaventurae , 1891 , p. 533 – 579 .

Breitsameter , Christof : “ Sünde und Schuld zwischen Individuum und Kollektiv ”, in: Christof Breitsameter / Stephan Goertz (ed.): Bibel und Moral – Ethische und exegetische Zugänge , Freiburg i. Br. : Herder , 2018 , p. 247 – 269 .

Cicero , Marcus Tullius : On Duties . Translated with introduction, notes, and indexes by Benjamin Patrick Newton . Ithaca, NY/London : Cornell University Press , 2016 .

Coleman , John / Baum , Gregory (ed.): Rerum novarum. A hundred years of Catholic social teaching . London : SCM Press/Philadelphia, PA: Trinity Press International , 1991 .

Cyprian : The Epistles , in: The Writings of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage , Vol. 1, Epistles and Some of the Treatises . Transl. by Robert Ernest Wallis . Buffalo, NY. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5. Edited by Alexander Roberts , James Donaldson , and A. Cleveland Coxe . ( Buffalo, NY : Christian Literature Publishing Co. , 1886 .), revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, 2017, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0506.htm ( date of last access: 14.03.2020 ).

Cyprian : The Treatises , in: The Writings of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage , Vol. 1, Epistles and Some of the Treatises . Transl. by Robert Ernest Wallis . From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5. Ed. by Alexander Roberts , James Donaldson , and A. Cleveland Coxe ( Buffalo, NY : Christian Literature Publishing Co. , 1886 .), revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, 2017, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0507.htm ( date of last access: 14.03.2020 ).

Daniélou , Jean : L’être et le temps chez Grégoire de Nysse . Leiden : Brill , 1970 .

Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae on the Right of the Person and Communities to Social and Civil Freedom in Matters Religious, promulgated by Pope Paul VI , 07.12.1965 , http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html ( date of last access: 04.03.2020 ).

Drewer , Mathew : “ Image, Identity, and Embodiment: Augustine’s Interpretation of the Human Person in Genesis 1–2 ”, in: Nathan MacDonald / Mark W. Elliott / Grant Macaskill (ed.): Genesis and Christian Theology . Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge : William B. Erdmans Publishing Company , 2012 , p. 117 – 128 .

Düwell , Marcus / Braarvig , Jens / Brownsword , Roger / Mieth , Dietmar (ed.): The Cambridge Handbook of Human Dignity. Interdisciplinary Perspectives . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 2014 .

Ebneter , Thomas : Exsistere. Zur Persondefinition in der Trinitätslehre des Richard von St. Viktor (†1173) . Fribourg : Academic Press , 2005 .

Ellverson , Anna-Stina : The Dual Nature of Man. A Study in the Theological Anthropology of Gregory of Nazianzus . Uppsala : Uppsala Universitet , 1981 .

Genesis 1–11 . Übersetzt und ausgelegt von Georg Fischer . Freiburg/Basel/Wien : Herder , 2018 .

Golser , Karl : Gewissen und objektive Sittenordnung. Zum Begriff des Gewissens in der neueren katholischen Moraltheologie . Vienna : Wiener Dom-Verlag , 1975 .

Gregorius Magnus : Epistulae , in: Opera omnia , Vol. 3 ( PL 77 ). Ed. Jacques-Paul Migne . Paris : Garnier et Migne , 1896 , p. 440 – 1328 .

Gregory of Nyssa : The Life of Moses . Translation, introduction and notes by Abraham J. Malherbe and Everett Ferguson , Preface by John Meyendorff. New York, NY : Paulist Press , 1978 .

Gregory of Nyssa : On the Making of Man , in: Dogmatic Treatises; Select Writings and Letters . Translated, with Prolegomena, Notes, and Indices by William Moore and Henry Austin Wilson . Edinburgh : T&T Clark /Grand Rapids, MI: WM.B. Eerdemans Publishing Company, 1988 [reprint of Oxford: Parker & Co, 1893]. Presented by The Common Man’s Prospective by Ernest C. March, 1999–2012, http://ecmarsh.com/fathers/npnf2/NPNF2-05/Npnf2-05-36.htm#P3055_2043494 ( date of last access: 10.03.2020 ).

Gregory of Nyssa : De vita Moysis II , in: Gregorii Nysseni opera , Vol. 7.1 . Ed. Herbertus Musurillo . Leiden : Brill , 1964 .

Gregory the Great , The Letters , Vol. 2: Books 5–9 . Translated, with introduction and notes by John R.C. Martyn . Toronto : Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies , 2004 , p. 324 – 712 .

Große Kracht , Hermann-Josef : “ Fünfzig Jahre Böckenförde-Theorem. Eine bundesrepublikanische Bekenntnisformel im Streit der Interpretationen ”, in: Hermann-Josef Große Kracht / Klaus Große Kracht (ed.): Religion – Recht – Republik. Studien zu Wolfgang-Ernst Böckenförde . Paderborn : Schöningh , 2014 , p. 155 – 183 .

Hilpert , Konrad : Die Menschenrechte. Geschichte, Theologie, Aktualität . Düsseldorf : Patmos 1991 .

Hittinger , F. Russel : “ Toward an Adequate Anthropology. Social Aspects of Imago Dei in Catholic Theology ”, in: Thomas Albert Howard (ed.): Imago Dei. Human Dignity in Ecumenical Perspective . Washington, D.C. : Catholic University of America Press , 2013 , p. 39 – 78 .

Hollenbach , David : “ Human Dignity in Catholic Thought ”, in: Marcus Düwell / Jens Braarvig / Roger Brownsword / Dietmar Mieth (ed.): The Cambridge Handbook of Human Dignity. Interdisciplinary Perspectives . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 2014 , p. 250 – 259 .

Hope , Nicholas : German and Scandinavian Protestantism 1700–1908 . Oxford : Oxford University Press , 1995 .

Hugo de Sancto Victore : De Sacramentis Christianae fidei . Ed. Rainer Berndt . Münster : Aschendorff , 2008 .

Imbach , Ruedi : “ Human Dignity in the Middle Ages (twelfth to fourteenth century) ”, in: Marcus Düwell / Jens Braarvig / Roger Brownsword / Dietmar Mieth (ed.): The Cambridge Handbook of Human Dignity. Interdisciplinary Perspectives . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 2014 , p. 64 – 73 .

Janowski , Bernd : “ Die lebendige Statue Gottes. Zur Anthropologie der priesterlichen Urgeschichte ”, in: Markus Witte (ed.): Gott und Mensch im Dialog. Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag . Berlin/Boston, MA : De Gruyter , 2004 , p. 183 – 214 .

Jervell , Jacob : “ Bild Gottes I ”, in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie , Vol. 6 . Berlin/New York, NY : Walter de Gruyter , 1980 , p. 491 – 498 .

Joas , Hans : The Sacredness of the Person. A New Genealogy of Human Rights . Transl. by Alex Skinner . Washington, D.C. : Georgetown University Press , 2013 .

John Paul II : Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in America , 22 . 1 . 1999 , http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_22011999_ecclesia-in-america.html ( date of last access: 24.03.2020 ).

Kant , Immanuel : Groundwork of the Metaphyics of Morals . Translated and Ed. by Mary Gregor and Jens Timmermann , Translation Revised by Jens Timmermann with an Introduction by Christine M. Korsgaard. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 2012 [5th printing 2019].

Kant , Immanuel : The Metaphysics of Morals . Ed. by Lara Denis , Transl. by Mary Gregor . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 2017 [3rd printing 2019].

Kateb , George : Human Dignity . Cambridge, MA/London : The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press , 2011 .

Kobusch , Theo : “ Die Würde des Menschen – ein Erbe der christlichen Philosophie ”, in: Rolf Gröschner / Stephan Kirste / Oliver W. Lembcke (ed.): Des Menschen Würde – entdeckt und erfunden im Humanismus der italienischen Renaissance . Tübingen : Mohr Siebeck , 2008 , p. 235 – 250 .

Lactantius , Venantius Honorius Clementianus Fortunatus : On the Workmanship of God, or the Formation of Man . Transl. by William Fletcher , in: Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries. Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitions, Homily, and Liturgies . American Edition chronologically arranged, with notes, prefaces, and elucidations by A. Cleveland Coxe . Buffalo, NY : Christian Literature Publishing Co ., 1989 [Reprint of the edition Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1886], p. 280 – 300 .

Lactantius , Venantius Honorius Clementianus Fortunatus : The Divine Institutions . Transl. by William Fletcher , in: Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries. Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitions, Homily, and Liturgies . American Edition chronologically arranged, with notes, prefaces, and elucidations by A. Buffalo, NY : Christian Literature Publishing Co ., 1989 [Reprint of the edition Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1886], p. 9 – 223 .

Leo Magnus : Sermones , in: Opera omnia , Vol. 1 . Ed. Petrus et Hieronymus Ballerini. accurante et denuo recognoscente Jacques-Paul Migne ( PL 54 ). Paris : Garnier et Migne , 1881 , p. 117 – 467 .

Leo the Great : Sermons . Transl. by Jane Patricia Freeland and Agnes Josephine Conway . Washington, D.C. : The Catholic University of America Press , 1995 .

Leo XIII : Rerum Novarum , 15 . 05 . 1891 , http://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html ( date of last access: 02.05.2020 ).

Lerch , Magnus : “ Freiheit des Menschen und Wirksamkeit der Gnade – Verbindung von transzendentaler und existenzieller Perspektive in gnadentheologischer Absicht ”, in: Aaron Langenfeld / Magnus Lerch (ed.): Theologische Anthropologie . Paderborn : Ferdinand Schöningh , 2018 , p. 213 – 243 .

Manetti , Iannotius : De dignitate et excellentia hominis libri IV . Basel : Andreas Cratander , 1532 , http://dx.doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-1740 ( date of last access: 04.03.2020 ).

Marenbon , John : From the Circle of Alcuin to the School of Auxerre. Logic, Theology and Philosophy in the Early Middle Ages . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 1981 .

McKeown , James : Genesis . Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge : William B. Erdmans Publishing Company , 2008 .

Meister Eckhart : Expositio sancti Evangelii secundum Iohannem , in: Die deutschen und lateinischen Werke: Die lateinischen Werke , Vol. 3 . Ed. and transl. by Karl Christ . Stuttgart : Kohlhammer , 1994 .

Menke , Christoph / Pollmann , Arnd : Philosophie der Menschenrechte zur Einführung . Hamburg : Junius , 2 2008 .

Mieth , Dietmar : “ Human Dignity in Late-Medieval Spiritual and Political Conflicts ”, in: Marcus Düwell / Jens Braarvig / Roger Brownsword / Dietmar Mieth (ed.): The Cambridge Handbook of Human Dignity. Interdisciplinary Perspectives . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 2014 , p. 74 – 84 .

Mitchell C. Ben : “ The Audacity of the Imago Dei. The Legacy and Uncertain Future of Human Dignity ”, in: Thomas Albert Howard (ed.): Imago Dei. Human Dignity in Ecumenical Perspective . Washington, D.C. : Catholic University of America Press , 2013 , p. 79 – 112 .

Müller , Sigrid : “ Gemeinwohldenken im Mittelalter ”, in: Christian Hiebaum (ed.): Handbuch Gemeinwohl . Wiesbaden : Springer Fachmedien , 2020 . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21086-1 (in process of online-publication).

Nussbaum , Martha : The Cosmopolitan Tradition. A Noble but Flawed Ideal . Cambridge, MA/London : Harvard University Press , 2019 .

Parliamentary Council : Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany in the Revised Version Published in the Federal Law Gazette Part III , Classification Number 100–101, as Last Amended by Article 1 of the Act of 28 March 2019 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 404) . Transl. by Christian Tomuschat , David P. Currie , Donald P. Kommers and Raymond Kerr , in Cooperation with the Language Service of the German Bundestag, 2019 , https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/index.html ( date of last access: 15.03.2020 ).

Pharo , Lars Kirkhusmo : “ The Council of Valladolid (1550–1551). A European Disputation about the Human Dignity of Indigenous Peoples of the Americas ”, in: Marcus Düwell / Jens Braarvig / Roger Brownsword / Dietmar Mieth (ed.): The Cambridge Handbook of Human Dignity. Interdisciplinary Perspectives . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 2014 , p. 95 – 100 .

Pico della Mirandola , Giovanni : On the Dignity of Man . Transl. by C. Wallis , Revised by P. Miller, in: On the Dignity of Man: On Being and the One: Heptaplus . Transl. by C. Wallis , P. Miller and D. Carmichael , Introd. by P. Miller. Indianapolis, IN : Hackett , 1998 , p. 1 – 34 .

Pinker , Steve : “ The Stupidity of Dignity ”, in: Human Life Review 34 ( 2 / 2008 ), p. 75 – 82 .

Pufendorf , Samuel von : De officio hominis et civis juxta legem naturalem libri duo , Vol. 1, Photographic Reproduction of the Edition of 1672 with an Introduction by Walther Schücking ; Vol. 2, The Translation by Frank Gardner Moore . New York, NY [a.o.] : Oxford University Press , 1927 .

Pufendorf , Samuel von : De jure naturae et gentium libri octo , Vol. 1: A Photographic Reproduction of the Edition of 1688 ; Vol. 2: The Translation by C.H. and W.A. Oldfather . New York, NY : Oxford University Press , 1934 .

Rayner , A.J. : “ Christian Society in the Roman Empire ”, in: Greece & Rome 11 ( 33 / 1942 ), p. 113 – 123 .

Richard de Saint-Victor : De trinitate . Ed. by J. Ribaillier . Paris : Vrin , 1958 .

Saastamoinen , Kari : “ Pufendorf on Natural Equality, Human Dignity, and Self-Esteem ”, in: Journal of the History of Ideas 71 ( 1 / 2010 ), p. 39 – 62 .

Sacramentarium Veronense (Cod. Bibl. Capit. Veron. LXXXV [80]). Ed. by Leo Cunibert Mohlberg in Connection with Leo Eizenhöfer and Petrus Siffrin ( RED.F I ). Rome : Herder , corr. and amplified ed. 3 1978 .

Sandford , Stella : “ Kant, Race, and Natural History ”, in: Philosophy and Social Criticism 44 ( 9 / 2018 ), p. 950 – 977 .

Schaede , Stephan : “ Würde – Eine ideengeschichtliche Annäherung aus theologischer Perspektive ”, in: Petra Bahr / Hans Michael Heinig (ed.): Menschenwürde in der säkularen Verfassungsordnung. Rechtswissenschaftliche und theologische Perspektiven . Tübingen : Mohr Siebeck , 2006 , p. 8 – 69 .

Schelkshorn , Hans : Entgrenzungen. Ein europäischer Beitrag zum Diskurs der Moderne . Weilerswist : Velbrück Wissenschaft , 2009 .

Schellenberg , Annette : Der Mensch, das Bild Gottes? Zum Gedanken einer Sonderstellung des Menschen im Alten Testament und in weiteren altorientalischen Quellen . Zürich : Theologischer Verlag , 2011 .

Schockenhoff , Eberhard : Ethik des Lebens. Grundlagen und neue Herausforderungen . Freiburg/Basel/Wien : Herder , 2009 .

Schüle , Andreas : Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel. Der literar- und theologiegeschichtliche Diskurs der Urgeschichte (Genesis 1–11) . Zürich : Theologischer Verlag Zürich , 2006 .

Siebenrock , Roman : “ Theologischer Kommentar zur Erklärung über die religiöse Freiheit Dignitatis humanae ”, in: Peter Hünermann / Bernd Jochen Hilberath (ed.): Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil . Freiburg/Basel/Wien : Herder , 2009 [2005], p. 125 – 218 .

Steenbakkers , Piet : “ Human Dignity in Renaissance Humanism ”, in: Marcus Düwell / Jens Braarvig / Roger Brownsword / Dietmar Mieth (ed.): The Cambridge Handbook of Human Dignity. Interdisciplinary Perspectives . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press 2014 , p. 85 – 94 .

Tesha, Michael Sia: Human Dignity as Basic Foundation for Morality in Perspective of ‘Bantu’ African Ethical Theory (With Specific Moral Challenges in Tanzania) . Dissertation, University of Vienna, 2019.

UN General Assembly , Universal Declaration of Human Rights . 217 ( III ) A. Paris, 1948 , http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights ( date of last access: 19.03.2020 ).

Von der Pfordten , Dietmar : Menschenwürde . München : C.H. Beck , 2016 .

Wagner , Hans : Die Würde des Menschen. Wesen und Normfunktion , in: Gesammelte Schriften , Vol. 2 . Ed. by Bernward Grünewald . Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich : Ferdinand Schöningh , 2014 .

Wasmaier-Sailer , Margit : Das Verhältnis von Moral und Religion bei Johann Michael Sailer und Immanuel Kant. Zum Profil philosophischer Theologie und theologischer Ethik in der säkularen Welt . Regensburg : Verlag Friedrich Pustet , 2018 .

Westerman , Pauline C. : “ Natural Rights versus Human Dignity: Two Conflicting Traditions ”, in: Marcus Düwell / Jens Braarvig / Roger Brownsword / Dietmar Mieth (ed.): The Cambridge Handbook of Human Dignity. Interdisciplinary Perspectives . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 2014 , p. 108 – 116 .

Winger , Wolfram : Personalität durch Humanität. Das ethikgeschichtliche Profil christlicher Handlungslehre bei Lactanz , Parts 1–2. Frankfurt a.M./Berlin/Bern/New York, NY/Paris/Wien : Peter Lang , 1999 .

Wippermann , Wolfgang : “ Januskopf – Die Auswirkungen der Reformation auf das Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche ”, in: Ansgar Klein / Olaf Zimmermann (ed.): Impulse der Reformation. Der zivilgesellschaftliche Diskurs . Wiesbaden : Springer VS , 2017 , p. 41 – 50 .

Wolterstorff , Nicholas : “ Toleration, Justice, and Dignity. Lecture on the Occasion of the Inauguration as Professor of Dirk-Martin Grube. Free University of Amsterdam, September 24, 2015 ”, in: International Journal of Philosophy and Theology 76 ( 5 / 2015 ), p. 377 – 386 , 03.06.2016, https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rjpt20/76/5 ( date of last access: 25.03.2020 ).

Zuber , Valentine : L’origine religieuse des droits de l’homme . Geneva : Labor et Fides , 2017 .

The German constitutional judge Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde pointed at the importance that faith traditions have for fostering societal values, which the state itself cannot produce with its own means. Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Staat, Gesellschaft, Freiheit. 1976, p. 60: “The liberal (German ‘freiheitlich’), secularized state lives by prerequisites which it cannot guarantee itself.” For more details cf. Große Kracht, Fünfzig Jahre Böckenförde-Theorem .

Joas, The Sacredness of the Person , p. 190–191.

Hilpert, Die Menschenrechte , p. 189 defines the relationship between human rights and ideas of the antiquity and the Jewish-Christian tradition as “relationship of correspondence”, which allows a theological argument in favour of human rights, but recognizes that the formulation and declaration of human rights was not a direct consequence of theological reflections and actions of the Church.

I will several times refer to the more comprehensive studies of Barth, Gottebenbildlichkeit und Menschenwürde ; Hilpert, Die Menschenrechte ; Schockenhoff, Ethik des Lebens ; Schaede, Würde ; von der Pfordten, Menschenwürde , and the contributions published in The Cambridge Handbook of Human Dignity .

E.g., after the Second World War, the term human dignity entered the Federal Council’s Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany . In its art. 2, it guarantees the right to life, physical integrity, and freedom of the person. On the explicit or implicit presence of the concept of human dignity in other constitutional texts cf. Barak, Human Dignity .

The Virginia declaration of rights (1776) already guarantees the enjoyment of life and liberty, and the Declaration of Human Rights (1948) in art. 3 refers to a right to life, freedom and security. See Schockenhoff, Ethik des Lebens , p. 241.

The four dimensions of human dignity are closely related yet open huge fields of discussion in philosophy, ethical theory and theological ethics, which cannot be presented here. As an example, authors who define dignity only in the fourth sense, as e.g. Steven Pinker, criticise adopting the term for the basic rights of a person. Other authors, as e.g. Hans Joas, see human rights as an accomplishment of modernity, and human dignity as source, but not as cause for human rights. Cf. Pinker, The Stupidity of Dignity ; Joas, The Sacredness of the Person .

The relationship between God and man is emphasised to different degrees in the scholars’ account. Some authors interpret the relationship between God and the imago Dei primarily as theological in the sense that human beings depend on God’s supporting activity in order to be an image of God. Most others argue, on the contrary, that it is the relationship of human beings towards each other and creation, and not the personal relationship between God and human beings, which the texts point out. Cf. Schüle, Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel , p. 97.

Genesis 1–11 übersetzt und ausgelegt , p. 150.

Genesis 1–11 übersetzt und ausgelegt , p. 149–152. The designation living statue is taken from Janowski, Die lebendige Statue Gottes .

McKeown, Genesis , p. 27: “Although it is difficult to ascertain the meaning of the ‘image’, it is closely associated with the uniqueness and distinctiveness of humans in the created order; the image of God sets humans apart from all creatures. The corollary of this is that God can have a closer relationship with humans than with the animals.”

McKeown, Genesis , p. 27: “Yet, rather than implying empowerment to exercise dictatorial rule over the rest of creation, the verbs in this context of creation and blessing should be understood as indicating a supremacy that is harmonious and mutually beneficial.”

Genesis 1–11 übersetzt und ausgelegt , p. 152. The addition of likeness to image avoids the false imagination that God looks like a human being; see Barr, The Image of God in the Book of Genesis , p. 24.

Schellenberg, Der Mensch, das Bild Gottes? , p. 386–387, p. 392 shows that the aspect of equality marks a difference with respect to other oriental contexts, while the relationship of man and God and of man and animals are common ground.

Schellenberg, Der Mensch, das Bild Gottes? , p. 141 et seq.

Barth, Gottebenbildlichkeit und Menschenwürde , p. 329.

Schüle, Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel , p. 94 et seq.

For a restricted interpretation in the sense that this passage refers only to the chosen people see the reference offered by Jervell, Bild Gottes I , p. 492.

Jervell, Bild Gottes I , p. 492.

Schüle, Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel , p. 96.

E.g., the Bantu African culture does speak about the dignity of human beings in a very similar way, uniting the aspects of equality, universality, and moral responsibility. See Tesha, Human Dignity as Basic Foundation .

This eschatological interpretation, as well as the passage in which he calls the woman a reflection of the man and the man an image of God (1 Corinthians 11:7) have been explained as “pedagogical use”. In James 3:9 a similar pedagogical use can be observed. Cf. Jervell, Bild Gottes I , p. 494–498. St. Augustine explains that image belongs to the human being as such, and therefore to both man and woman together, but not if a certain function is regarded, as being the helpmate. Cf. Augustine, On the Trinity , p. 89 ( XII , 7, 9–10).

Cf. Breitsameter, Sünde und Schuld , p. 266.

Breitsameter, Sünde und Schuld , p. 267.

Breitsameter, Sünde und Schuld , p. 263.

Breitsameter, Sünde und Schuld , p. 263 et seq.

Barth, Gottebenbildlichkeit und Menschenwürde , p. 340. According to Barth, the emphasis on the dignity of the individual person dominated Christian tradition due to the influence of Augustine’s theory of original sin , and was strong during the entire Old-Protestantism ; it dominated the interpretation of the imago Dei paradigm in terms of natural law.

Cf. von der Pfordten, Menschenwürde , p. 23.

Cyprian’s letters show a plurifold use of the Latin term dignity. A direct comparison between the Roman and the Christian understanding can be found in his letter no. 37 to Moyses and Maximus. Cf. Cyprian, The Letters , p. 52: “Now, therefore, let magistrates and consuls or proconsuls go by; let them glory in the ensigns of their yearly dignity, and in their twelve fasces. Behold, the heavenly dignity in you is sealed by the brightness of a years’ honour, and already, in the continuance of its victorious glory, has passed over the rolling circle of the returning year.”

Schaede, Würde , p. 28–30: Cyprian, The treatises , no. 3: On the Lapsed: “Let no one, beloved brethren, let no one decry the dignity of martyrs, let no one degrade their glories and their crowns.”

The collection Acts of the Christian Martyrs , Hermbert Musurillo lists references to 2 Corinthians 3:18, yet the text itself does not refer to the notion of imago Dei , but to the idea of eternal glory expressed in the verse.

Cicero, On duties ( I , 106), p. 64: “And if we also wish to consider what is excellent and dignified in our nature, we should understand how disgraceful it is to waste away in luxury and to live effeminately and pampered, and how honorable it is to live frugally, contentedly, austerely, and soberly.” Cf. the interpretation by von der Pfordten, Menschenwürde , p. 17–18. He emphases (p. 18–21) that no textual proof exists for assuming that Cicero took this idea from Stoicism, nor does the Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca refer to Cicero’s understanding of dignity. Schelkshorn, Entgrenzungen , p. 256, shows that the ancient philosophers in spite of several universal ideas (e.g. Stoic cosmopolitanism) failed in drawing sufficiently political consequences, so that social inequality maintained its legitimacy. Cf. also Nussbaum, The cosmopolitan tradition , p. 64–96.

Rayner, Christian Society in the Roman Empire , p. 115.

Rayner, Christian Society in the Roman Empire , p. 116.

Cf. Wolfram Winger, Personalität durch Humanität , p. 532–547.

Lactantius, The Divine Institutes 6,10,1, p. 172; 6,20,17, p. 187. Cf. Winger, Personalität durch Humanität , p. 11.

Wolterstorff, Toleration, justice, and dignity , p. 380 et seq.

The Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (*24 BCE –40 CE ) had for the first time expressed the idea that human beings do have a mortal and an immortal nature, as far as their body links them to the mortal, and their consciousness to the immortal. This perspective was adopted in Christianity already by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 15:49). Cf. Kobusch, Die Würde des Menschen – ein Erbe der christlichen Philosophie , p. 238.

Daniélou, L’être et le temps chez Grégoire de Nysse , p. 119. The dynamic of rational and irrational parts of the human being has been recently also emphasized by John Behr, The Rational Animal , p. 219–247. In the Latin tradition, e.g. Lactantius, in his De opificio Dei , makes clear that human beings are distinct from animals because they were not given exterior strength, but their soul as interior strength, endowed with perception and reason to defeat merely corporeal inclinations and to let themselves govern by the soul. Cf. Lactantius, On the Workmanship of God , c. 2, p. 282 et seq.

Cf. Kobusch, Die Würde des Menschen – ein Erbe der christlichen Philosophie , p. 246. He refers to Gregor Nyssenus, de vita Moysis II , p. 56, line 25–27: “And we are so to say the fathers of ourselves by producing ourselves as the ones that we want to be, and by manufacturing us through our will according to the model that we want.” (transl. S.M.).

Gregory of Nyssa, On the making of man , c. 4–5: “[…] for the soul immediately shows its royal and exalted character […], in that it owns no lord, and is self-governed, swayed autocratically by its own will […] so the human nature also, as it was made to rule the rest, was, by its likeness to the King of all, made as it were a living image […] but instead of the purple robe, clothed in virtue, which is in truth the most royal of all raiment, and in place of the sceptre, leaning on the bliss of immortality, and instead of the royal diadem, decked with the crown of righteousness; so that it is shown to be perfectly like to the beauty of its archetype in all that belongs to the dignity of royalty […] purity, freedom from passion, blessedness, alienation from all evil, and all those attributes of the like kind which help to form in men the likeness of God: with such hues as these did the Maker of His own image mark our nature […] you see in yourself word and understanding, an imitation of the very Mind and Word. Again, God is love, and the fount of love […] the Fashioner of our nature has made this to be our feature too […] thus, if this be absent, the whole stamp of the likeness is transformed. The Deity beholds and hears all things, and searches all things out: you too have the power of apprehension of things by means of sight and hearing, and the understanding that inquires into things and searches them out.” Cf. Von der Pfordten, Menschenwürde , p. 22.

Ellverson, The Dual Nature of Man , p. 72.

Augustine, On the Trinity ( XII , 7, 12; rational mind), p. 91; ( XIV , 12; to remember, understand, love), p. 153 et seq.

Augustine, On the Trinity , ( XIV , 4, 6), p. 142: “[…] whether this image be so effaced as almost to amount to nothing, or whether it be obscured and disfigured, or whether it be clear and beautiful – it always exists […] and although it could be corrupted because it is not the hightest, yet because it is capable of the hightest nature and can be sharer in it, it is a great nature.” Cf. Von der Pfordten, Menschenwürde , p. 23.

Drewer, Image, Identity, and Embodiment , p. 123, fn 26: “Augustine’s version of Gen. 1:26 does not specify which dimension(s) of the human being is the image of God . But citing Paul (Eph. 4:23–24; Col. 3:10), Augustine is clear that the image of God is found in the soul or illuminated mind (Gn. Litt. 3.20.30) […].”

Drewer, Image, Identity, and Embodiment , p. 127; p. 123: This understanding is based on the idea that the soul is not “governed by a potential-actual dynamic and oriented toward a universal structure (genus) that stands outside it […]. The situation is different for the soul. The immediate and intimate relation between God and the soul generated by its origin is complemented by a similar situation in its identity. As part of intellectual creation, the soul exists, primordially speaking, in an intellectual act oriented toward God. The intimate relation generated here enables the identity of the soul as the image of God.”

Schaede, Würde , p. 13.

Ambrosius, Exaemeron , dies 5, 15, 52, p. 178 et seq.: Sic a principio acceptam a natura exemplo avium politiam homines exercere coeperant, ut communis esset labor, communis dignitas […] nemo audebat alium servitio premere, cuius sibi succcessuri in honorem mutua forent subeunda fastidia, nemini labor gravis, quem secutura dignitas relevaret.

Schaede, Würde , p. 28 et seq.

Leo the Great, Sermons 27, 6 p. 114: “Wake up then, o friend, and acknowledge the dignity of your nature. Recall that you have been made ‘according to the image of God’. This nature, although it had been corrupted in Adam, has nevertheless been re-fashioned in Christ.” Cf. Schaede, Würde , p. 31.

Hilpert, Die Menschenrechte , 97. Gregorius Magnus, Epistulae VI , 12, p. 803–805: Cum Redemptor noster (Grat. 12 q. 2 c. 68), totius conditor creaturae, ad hoc propitiatus humanam voluerit carnem assumere, ut divinitatis suae gratia dirupto quo tenebamur capti vinculo servitutis, pristinae nos restitueret libertati, salubriter agitur si homines quos ab initio natura liberos protulit, et jus gentium jugo substituit servitutis, (a) in ea qua nati fuerant (b) manumittentits beneficio libertate reddantur.

Von der Pfordten, Menschenwürde , p. 23 regards this a first step in a development towards a modern philosophical understanding of a substantial human dignity. With respect to the text itself, he refers to the second edition of 1966 and quotes a text version which in the third edition is offered in the footnote as alternative reading: Deus qui humanae substantiae dignitatem mirabiliter condidisti et mirabilius reformasti. The text actually proposed by the edition reads slightly different, namely: Deus, qui in humanae substantiae dignitate + et mirabiliter condedisti <sic!> et mirabilius reformasti: da, quaesumus, nobis Iesu Christi filii tui: eius: divinitatis esse consortes, qui humanitatis nostrae fieri dignatus est particeps: per. Where the sign for an unreadable word (+) is set, I would expect the Latin word “nos”, meaning “us”, so the text would read: “God, you who has founded us in the dignity of our human substance and has even more wonderfully restored us in it: Give us, so we pray, that we become fellows in the divinity of Jesus Christ, your son, who has deigned to participate in our humanity” [Trans. S.M.]. The difference of the texts is that in the main reading, dignity is consubstantial with and therefore an immediate expression of the human being and nothing that needs to be created apart from the human being: God did not create dignity, but the human being. Cf. Sacramentarium Veronense , p. 157, no. 1239. This text does not allude to the fall of man, though using the same word as does Leo in his letter for the refashioning in Christ (reformare) (see footnote 50). Though the meaning seems to be the same, the Sacramentarium uses the word substance and not nature. This could indicate that Boethius’s definition of the human person as substance exerted some influence. For a comparation with the Latin text of Leo, cf. Leo Magnus, Sermones 27, 6, p. 220: Expergiscere, o homo, et dignitatem tuae cognosce naturae. Recordare te factum ad imaginem Dei (Genesis. 1, 26); quae, etsi in Adam corrupta, in Christo tamen est reformata.

Marenbon, From the Circle of Alcuin to the School of Auxerre , p. 160, p. 158, which refer to the Dicta Albini , edited by Marenbon as part of his Appendix 1.

Marenbon, From the Circle of Alcuin to the School of Auxerre , p. 164 (Text of Alcuin): Sicut enim qui non amat imaginem Dei, Deum non amare conuincitur, sic, qui non agnoscit imaginem Dei, Deum utique non agnoscere probatur.

Imbach, Human Dignity in the Middle Ages , p. 65. Hugo de Sancto Victore, De Sacramentis Christianae fidei , I , 6, 2.

Imbach, Human Dignity in the Middle Ages , p. 65–69.

Imbach, Human Dignity in the Middle Ages , p. 65; Thomas von Aquin, De veritate q. 25 a. 6 ad 2: Recessus autem a ratione, in qua tota dignitas humana consistit, ad turpitudinem pertinent.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae. Secunda secundae, 1–91 , q. 64 a. 2 ad 3, p. 598: “By sinning man departs from the orderdine rationis recedit, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood, insofar as he is naturally free, and exists himself, and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts, by being disposed of according as he is useful to others. […] Hence, although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1 and Ethic. vii, 6).”

Imbach, Human dignity in the middle ages , p. 71.

Bonaventura, Itinerarum mentis in deum ( III ,1), p. 303b: nec se posset amare, nisi se nosset; nec se nosset, nisi sui meminisset.

Bonaventura, Sermones selecti de rebus theologicis 4,16, p. 571b: Ad cuius intelligentiam notandum, quod in creaturis reperitur triplex modus conformitatis ad Deum. Quaedam enim conformantur Deo sicut vestigium , quaedam sicut imago , quaedam sicut similitudo. Vestigium autem dicit comparationem ad Deum sicut ad principium causativum; imago autem non solum sicut ad principium, sed etiam sicut ad obiectum motivum ; “eo enim est anima imago Dei, ut dicit Augustinus decimo quarto de Trinitate, quod capax eius est et particeps esse potest”, scilicet per cognitionem et amorem. Similitudo autem respicit Deum non tantum per modum principii et obiecti, verum etiam per modum doni infusi . In contrast to the biblical text, Bonaventure uses similarity to signify a stronger unity of human being and God, not their difference.

Imbach, Human Dignity in the Middle Ages , p. 65; Bernard of Clairvaux, Concerning Grace and Free Will 9, 28, p. 25 et seq.

Imbach, Human Dignity in the Middle Ages , p. 69. For a development of the idea of the common good in the Middle Ages cf. Sigrid Müller, Gemeinwohldenken im Mittelalter .

Imbach, Human Dignity in the Middle Ages , p. 67; Boethius, Contra Eutychen et Nestorium/Against Eutyches and Nestorius (c. III ), p. 85: “[…] we have found the definition of person: ‘The individual substance of a rational nature.’”

Imbach, Human Dignity in the Middle Ages , p. 68; Ebneter, Exsistere: zur Persondefinition in der Trinitätslehre des Richard von St. Viktor (†1173) , p. 68–69.

Imbach, Human Dignity in the Middle Ages , p. 68.

Imbach, Human Dignity in the Middle Ages , p. 68; Aquinas, Summa theologiae I , q. 29, a. 3 co.: Respondeo dicendum quod persona significat id quod est perfectissimum in tota natura, scilicet subsistens in rationali natura.

Schaede, Würde , p. 42; Steenbakkers, Human Dignity in Renaissance humanism , p. 88.

Imbach, Human Dignity in the Middle Ages , p. 70; Aquinas, Summa theologiae: Secunda secundae , q. 114 a. 1 ad. 2, p. 178: “Every man is naturally every man’s friend by a certain general love […].”

Imbach, Human Dignity in the Middle Ages , p. 71; Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae. Secunda secundae , q. 64, a. 2 resp.; a. 3 resp., p. 597–599; q. 57, a. 3 ad 2, p. 527.

Mieth, Human dignity in late-medieval spiritual and political conflicts , p. 76. He quotes Meister Eckhart, Expositio sancti Evangelii secundum Iohannem (no. 51:42): “For ‘In the beginning was the word’ also means: in the beginning was reason […]. What is done in accordance with reason […] emanates from God’s countenance.”

Mieth, Human dignity in late-medieval spiritual and political conflicts , p. 81 et seq.

Stenbakkers, Human Dignity in Renaissance humanism , p. 92.

Stenbakkers, Human Dignity in Renaissance humanism , p. 88; Petrarch, De viris illustribus ; Manetti, De dignitate et excellentia hominis .

Stenbakkers, Human Dignity in Renaissance humanism , p. 91.

Pico della Mirandola, On the dignity of man , p. 4–6. Cf. Stenbakkers, Human Dignity in Renaissance humanism , p. 91. Cf. Schelkshorn, Entgrenzungen , p. 163–204.

Cf. Stenbakkers, Human Dignity in Renaissance humanism , p. 99.

Pharo, The Council of Valladolid , p. 98.

Schelkshorn, Entgrenzungen , p. 275, p. 279.

Schelkshorn, Entgrenzungen , p. 208–231.

Hilpert, Die Menschenrechte , p. 103 et seq.

Westerman, Natural rights versus human dignity , p. 114.

Bayer, Martin Luther’s conception of human dignity , p. 102–104; Bilaterale Arbeitsgruppe, Gott und die Würde des Menschen , p. 111–112.

Westerman, Natural rights versus human dignity , p. 114 et seq.

Von der Pfordten, Menschenwürde , p. 30.

Hilpert, Die Menschenrechte , p. 105 et seq. On the complex relationship of Pufendorf’s to Kant’s account of human dignity cf. Saastamoinen, Pufendorf on Natural Equality, Human Dignity, and Self-Esteem , p. 39–62.

Saastamoinen, Pufendorf on Natural Equality, Human Dignity, and Self-Esteem , p. 39; Hilpert, Die Menschenrechte , p. 105. Samuel von Pufendorf wrote a short version of his eight volumes De jure naturae et gentium which has the title De officio hominis et civis juxta legem naturalem (1672).

Von der Pfordten, Menschenwürde , p. 29, p. 34. Kant compares things that have a value (prize) with human beings who have dignity, in his second part of the Metaphysics of Morals of 1789. Cf. Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals , p. 46: “[…] but what constitutes the condition under which alone something can be an end in itself does not merely have a relative worth, i.e. a price, but an inner worth, i.e. dignity .” Also: Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals , p. 225: “Every human being has a legitimate claim to respect from his fellow human beings and is in turn bound to respect every other. Humanity itself is a dignity; for a human being cannot be used merely as a means by any human being (either by others or even by himself) but must always be used at the same time as an end. It is just in this that his dignity (personality) consists, by which he raises himself above all other beings in the world that are not human beings and yet can be used, and so over all things . But just as he cannot give himself away for any price (this would conflict with his duty of self-esteem), so neither can he act contrary to the equally necessary self-esteem of others, as human beings, that is, he is under obligation to acknowledge, in a practical way, the dignity of humanity in every other human being. Hence there rests on him a duty regarding the respect that must be shown to every other human being”.

Von der Pfordten, Menschenwürde , p. 36, shows that the Anglo-Saxon countries and countries with a majority of Catholicism as Italy remained with a religious or theonomy-like understanding of human dignity, and also German philosophers as Hegel have situated human dignity in the religious background.

For a comprehensive account of the foundation of and duty related to human dignity, cf. Wagner, Die Würde des Menschen . Recently, Aleida Assmann has recalled the connection between rights and duties, cf. Assmann, Menschenrechte und Menschenpflichten .

For an example of the Catholic reaction, cf. Wasmaier-Sailer, Das Verhältnis von Moral und Religion .

Von der Pfordten, Menschenwürde , p. 39, refers to Ferdinand Lassalle’s political activities.

Cf., e.g., Sandford, Kant, race, and natural history , p. 950–977. Kant’s approach also needs to be corrected in the sense that human dignity “can be destroyed but not forfeited”: cf. Kateb, Human dignity , p. 176.

For an evaluation of this period, a more detailed research into this period would be required. Hilpert, Die Menschenrechte , p. 141–145, describes how human rights enter partially the Catholic social teaching.

With regard to the German Protestant Churches, cf., e.g., Wippermann, Januskopf , p. 41–50.

Cf. Coleman/Baum, Rerum novarum . Leo XIII refers to human dignity when he argues for just remuneration and working conditions in his Encyclical Rerum Novarum. For the tradition of diacony, cf., e.g., Hope, German and Scandinavian Protestantism 1700–1908 , p. 400–419.

UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights .

Menke/Pollmann, Philosophie der Menschenrechte , p. 131.

In a movement contrary to the Catholic Church, French Protestantism later moved to a distance from the human rights discourse because of the lack of religious foundation. The Catholic Church instead, had initially condemned the idea of human rights and freedom of religion because they did not respect the Catholic’s Church claim to truth; however, the positions moved closer and finally, with Vatican II , integrated the idea of human rights into its own position. See Zuber, L’origine religieuse des droits de l’homme .

Dignitatis humanae , no. 1: “A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man, and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty. […] To this end, it searches into the sacred tradition and doctrine of the Church-the treasury out of which the Church continually brings forth new things that are in harmony with the things that are old.” For an overview, see Hollenbach, Human dignity in Catholic thought .

Siebenrock, Theologischer Kommentar zur Erklärung über die religiöse Freiheit Dignitatis humanae , p. 125–218.

On the changes in the Catholic Church’s approach to conscience that took place during Vatican II cf. Golser, Gewissen und objektive Sittenordnung .

John Paul II , Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in America , in no. 55, refers to human dignity, solidarity and subsidiarity as threefold cornerstone of Catholic Social Teaching. I owe this reference to Anthony John Britto. For an overview on the topic, cf. Hittinger, Toward an Adequate Anthropology . For a view from Protestantism, cf. C. Ben Mitchell, The Audacity of the ‘Imago Dei’ .

Cf. Schockenhoff, Ethik des Lebens , p. 239.

An example for such a cooperation has been presented by a bilateral working group of the German Catholic bishops’ conference and the United Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Germany which has published the text “God and the dignity of man”. It summarizes the different accounts of human dignity in the Bible in four groups, namely (1) the dignity of the image of God (reasons from the theology of creation); (2) the dignity of true man (reasons from Christology); (3) the dignity of the person called to redemption (reasons from a theology of redemption); and (4) the dignity of the person called to perfection (eschatological reasons). The working group regards the dignity of the image of God as complementary to the other theological accounts. The text stresses that the neither the first nor the other accounts are mutually exclusive in the sense that an approach from creation would exclude the possibility of failure, or that an approach from redemption theology would depart from the idea that a fallen man is not anymore a human being. In this way, the working group intends to overcome classical separation between a Catholic emphasis on reasons from the theology of creation and natural law, and a protestant highlighting theology of redemption. Cf. Bilaterale Arbeitsgruppe, Gott und die Würde des Menschen , p. 111–119, esp. p. 112 et seq. A combination of both lines requires that human freedom and divine grace are not regarded as mutually excluding conditions of human acting. Cf. Lerch, Freiheit des Menschen und Wirksamkeit der Gnade , p. 213–243.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 19614 4657 244
PDF Views & Downloads 23789 7312 352

Content Metrics

Cover Interdisciplinary Journal for Religion and Transformation in Contemporary Society

Reference Works

Primary source collections

COVID-19 Collection

How to publish with Brill

Open Access Content

Contact & Info

Sales contacts

Publishing contacts

Stay Updated

Newsletters

Social Media Overview

Terms and Conditions  

Privacy Statement  

Cookie Settings  

Accessibility

Legal Notice

Terms and Conditions   |   Privacy Statement   |  Cookie Settings   |   Accessibility   |  Legal Notice   |  Copyright © 2016-2024

Copyright © 2016-2024

  • [185.66.14.133]
  • 185.66.14.133

Character limit 500 /500

Kidspirit typeface with infinity sign logo

Like what you're reading?

Check out KidSpirit newsletters, and get more great content in your inbox!

Which newsletters would you like to receive?

Art by Jaden Flach, Brooklyn

COMMENTS

  1. Human Dignity in an Ethical Sense: Basic Considerations

    Abstract The idea of human dignity is an ancient one. It has been the object of reflection with different approaches, during the various periods in the history of philosophical, theological, and ethical thought. This essay focuses on the most relevant approaches to the idea of human dignity in this cultural evolution, proposing a look at the ontological paradigm and its limits, the ethical ...

  2. What's So Special About Human Dignity?

    9 Martha Nussbaum, "Human Dignity and Political Entitlements," Human Dignity and Bioethics: Essays Commissioned by the President's Council on Bioethics (Washington, DC: President's Council on Bioethics, 2008), ... 14 We can think of this as part of a two-step process toward achieving (some measure of) "reflective equilibrium" ...

  3. What is Human Dignity? Common Definitions

    Human dignity: the human rights framework. The original meaning of the word "dignity" established that someone deserved respect because of their status. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that concept was turned on its head. Article 1 states: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.".

  4. Human Dignity: The Inherent Worth of Every Individual

    Human dignity is a fundamental concept that underscores the inherent worth and value of every individual, regardless of their background, identity, or circumstances.It is a concept deeply ingrained in philosophy, ethics, and human rights, serving as the foundation for principles such as equality, respect, and justice.In this essay, we will explore the meaning and significance of human dignity ...

  5. 36 Human Rights, Human Dignity,and Human Experience

    As a common point of reference for critically evaluating and integrating the diversity of instantiations of human rights in differing legal traditions, the elementary experience of human dignity leads us to regard law as a vehicle for sustained and reasoned reflection on the value of human persons and on the scope of our obligations to respect ...

  6. Human Dignity and the Image of God—A Review Essay

    Thomas Howard places his edited volume, Imago Dei: Human Dignity in an Ecumenical Perspective within a Cold War context: "The years following World War II witnessed much discussion about and reflection on the idea of human dignity" (1). Three essays and a response address "human dignity" from within the Eastern Orthodox (John Behr ...

  7. Essay on Human Rights: Samples in 500 and 1500

    Here is a 200-word short sample essay on basic Human Rights. Human rights are a set of rights given to every human being regardless of their gender, caste, creed, religion, nation, location or economic status. These are said to be moral principles that illustrate certain standards of human behaviour.

  8. human dignity

    Dignity is defined as a moral, legal, ethical or political term that means a being has an innate right to be treating equitability. Every human being has the basic right of equality, respect, freedom, acceptance, and to think, express his moral beliefs. According to human rights doctrine, " Human dignity is a universal, indivisible ...

  9. The Concept of Human Dignity: [Essay Example], 687 words

    Human dignity is a complex and multi-faceted concept that holds great significance in society. It is rooted in the belief that every individual possesses inherent value and worth, regardless of their background, characteristics, or circumstances. Understanding and acknowledging human dignity is crucial for fostering respect, equality, and ...

  10. Human Dignity in an Ethical Sense: Basic Considerations

    The idea of human dignity is an ancient one. It has been the object of reflection with different approaches, during the various periods in the history of philosophical, theological, and ethical ...

  11. Life and Dignity of the Human Person

    The Catholic Church proclaims that human life is sacred and that the dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society. This belief is the foundation of all the principles of our social teaching. In our society, human life is under direct attack from abortion and euthanasia. The value of human life is being threatened ...

  12. "The Essential Dignity of Man as Man": Frederick Douglass on Human

    The idea of dignity figures prominently in Frederick Douglass's philosophy of rights, duties, and virtues. In this essay, I argue that Douglass's understanding of dignity is best understood as a capacities-based account; he contends that the special moral worth of human beings is rooted in their distinctive capacities to reason, to understand morality, to choose how they will act, and to ...

  13. Human Dignity and Bioethics: Essays Commissioned by the President's

    Thus, every human being has full moral worth or dignity, for every human being possesses such a rational nature. While membership in the species Homo sapiens is sufficient for full moral worth, it is not in any direct sense the criterion for moral worth. If we discovered extra-terrestrial beings of a rational nature, or if we found that some ...

  14. Human Dignity

    Those concerns with philosophical anthropology form a point of departure for reflection on ethics. For example, animal ethics concerns sometimes explicitly, but always at least implicitly, questions about the value of human beings in contrast to nonhuman animals. ... Human dignity and bioethics: essays commissioned by the President's Council ...

  15. Reflections on the Death Penalty: Human Rights, Human Dignity, and

    None of this is true. The condemned must do this, and no one is there for them. Nothing that is said or done by others in the death house matters in any material way; nothing changes the inexorable killing routine. Words and gestures of ersatz humanity are but a gloss over the workings of a modern-day charnel house.

  16. Human Dignity and the Image of God—A Review Essay

    Human Dignity and the Image of God—A Review Essay For God and/or Country: The Image of God and/or Human Dignity Tal Howard places his edited volume, Imago Dei: Human Dignity in an Ecumenical Perspective within a Cold War context: "The years following World War II witnessed much discussion about and reflection on the idea of human dignity ...

  17. PDF Part I Foundations Human Dignity in an Ethical Sense: Basic ...

    It has been the object of reflection with different approaches, during the various periods in the history of philosophical, theo- ... This essay focuses on the most relevant approaches to the idea of human dignity in this cultural evolution, proposing a look at the ontological paradigm and its limits, the ethical paradigm and its values, and ...

  18. Human Dignity and Human Rights: Fostering and Protecting ...

    Abstract Human rights and their universality can lead to restrictions for individuals resulting from duties, which correspond to human rights of all human beings. This characteristic of human rights emphasizes the need for an ethical justification. Addressing the question of how human rights can be justified represents, therefore, an expression of respect for pluralism and particularity ...

  19. Concepts and Dimensions of Human Dignity in the Christian ...

    Abstract This paper investigates the extent to which Christian tradition can be used to support human dignity and human rights in contemporary society. It explores the Christian tradition for ideas that correspond to the four main dimensions of human dignity: anthropological, moral, legal, and practical. It examines how these dimensions relate to the two main Christian perspectives that define ...

  20. Reflections on Dignity

    The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) brought Islam to the world and was a true model of excellence for human values and rights. He worked tirelessly to reduce the social and economic injustices in Arabia. He advocated for the rights of all living beings in a society where very almost nobody understood dignity, respect, or even self-worth.