A philosophical basis for inherent universal human dignity

[Theophorus]

Naturally as a Catholic I see my creation by God as a human being as the basis for my human dignity, my rights, and so for justice which is objective and which transcends man made law.

but to play advocatus diaboli I ask:

Without direct reference to God, that is to say on philosophical grounds, Is there something we can base such universal human rights on?

Or Would we say they are universal merely by convention and only by virtue of human law?

Or is there some fundamental attribute of humanity on which we can base human rights without reference to a legislator or to God?

I know where I stand but I am interested to hear the views of others

[brgregmack]

I don't think there is any argument solely from philosophy. However, you can use philosophy to get to God and thus universal human dignity.

For example, we could go into the question for the basis of right and wrong being conscience and/or societal norms. With them as the only basis, then you would have to justify Nazi Germany and ancient Aztec human sacrifice in order to be logically consistent, and therefore no universal human dignity.

You could broaden it to history and the entire world population, thus including every outcry against human degradation, but that still leaves the question of the underlying reasons for said opposition. To remain honest, it would have to be admitted by far the most opposition and improvements against human degradation has come from those who hold Judeo-Christian values, and thus believe in God.

There's no way around it.

[tonyrey]

The only rational basis for inherent universal human dignity is that we are all children of the same Father. If we are not intended to exist and just happen to co-exist by an accident of birth there is no valid reason to believe in the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity or in love, goodness, justice, freedom or dignity.

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by Theophorus

Naturally as a Catholic I see my creation by God as a human being as the basis for my human dignity, my rights, and so for justice which is objective and which transcends man made law.

but to play advocatus diaboli I ask:

Without direct reference to God, that is to say on philosophical grounds, Is there something we can base such universal human rights on?

Theo:

I think so: Certainly we have "rights" because we are creatures of God. But, we don't osmotically possess "rights" until and unless they are specifically reciprocated. The impetus for such reciprocity is part of the Natural Law, which is something written on our hearts by virtue of our inclusion in community. Though they may be unstated, you have rights precisely because I accord them to you and you, in turn, accord the same to me. I hope I sad that sufficiently well enough to be understandable.

God bless,
jd

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Theophorus

Naturally as a Catholic I see my creation by God as a human being as the basis for my human dignity, my rights, and so for justice which is objective and which transcends man made law.

but to play advocatus diaboli I ask:

Without direct reference to God, that is to say on philosophical grounds, Is there something we can base such universal human rights on?

Or Would we say they are universal merely by convention and only by virtue of human law?

Or is there some fundamental attribute of humanity on which we can base human rights without reference to a legislator or to God?

I know where I stand but I am interested to hear the views of others

*The human person is worthy of profound respect.*

is an universal truth which both theists and non-theists can agree with.

[brgregmack]

Originally Posted by grannymh

*The human person is worthy of profound respect.*

is an universal truth which both theists and non-theists can agree with.

That statement is a conclusion that begs the question of why. There needs to be a reason.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by brgregmack

That statement is a conclusion that begs the question of why. There needs to be a reason.

The human person is worthy of profound respect is an objective fact in that it exists independently. Of course, there are many, many reasons why this is true about the human person. The many, many, reasons are why both theists and non-theists can recognize the truth of the statement. Theists and non-theists are not restricted to using the same reason.

[Theophorus]

Originally Posted by brgregmack

I don't think there is any argument solely from philosophy. However, you can use philosophy to get to God and thus universal human dignity.

For example, we could go into the question for the basis of right and wrong being conscience and/or societal norms. With them as the only basis, then you would have to justify Nazi Germany and ancient Aztec human sacrifice in order to be logically consistent, and therefore no universal human dignity.

You could broaden it to history and the entire world population, thus including every outcry against human degradation, but that still leaves the question of the underlying reasons for said opposition. To remain honest, it would have to be admitted by far the most opposition and improvements against human degradation has come from those who hold Judeo-Christian values, and thus believe in God.

There's no way around it.

I would tend to agree, I can't see another basis for objective human dignity and rights other than one outside of and superior to the human sphere. Sure we can have rights by agreement and convention but I believe that "conventional rights" as it were presuppose inherent universal rights not conferred by the state or simoly by humanity.

[Theophorus]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

The only rational basis for inherent universal human dignity is that we are all children of the same Father. If we are not intended to exist and just happen to co-exist by an accident of birth there is no valid reason to believe in the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity or in love, goodness, justice, freedom or dignity.

Dignity and love yes, but I would say that the others you mention can, in a way, be conferred by convention, as a kind of lockean social contract. This of course would be by convention and not by nature as subject to change at the whim of the majority.

I however see basic human dignity as a perquisite for the rest. IMO basic and intrinsic dignity and rights flow from our status as created by God. Justice presupposes Rights. And freedom, equality, fraternity and liberty presuppose justice (justice as giving the other person their due).

[Theophorus]

Originally Posted by JDaniel

Theo:

I think so: Certainly we have "rights" because we are creatures of God. But, we don't osmotically possess "rights" until and unless they are specifically reciprocated. The impetus for such reciprocity is part of the Natural Law, which is something written on our hearts by virtue of our inclusion in community. Though they may be unstated, you have rights precisely because I accord them to you and you, in turn, accord the same to me. I hope I sad that sufficiently well enough to be understandable.

God bless,
jd

Interesting POV, rights then are subjective but demanded by natural law it that it?
This sounds like rights based on convention rather than inherent rights.
On that view I don't recognise your rights(say right to life) do you have them?
Or likewise if the majority don't recognise your rights(say as a blinding to natural law as often happens in totalitarian regimes) do you still have them?

[Theophorus]

Originally Posted by grannymh

The human person is worthy of profound respect is an objective fact in that it exists independently. Of course, there are many, many reasons why this is true about the human person. The many, many, reasons are why both theists and non-theists can recognize the truth of the statement. Theists and non-theists are not restricted to using the same reason.

Of course I agree that the human person is worthy of profound respect by virtue of being.

I would be interested in hearing some of the reasons why non-catholics would recognise the truth of this statment. How can we prove it is an objective fact which exists independently?
What argument would non-theists use or be convinced by?

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by Theophorus

Dignity and love yes, but I would say that the others you mention can, in a way, be conferred by convention, as a kind of lockean social contract. This of course would be by convention and not by nature as subject to change at the whim of the majority.

The whim of the majority is not a rational, adequate or binding basis for anything!

I however see basic human dignity as a perquisite for the rest. IMO basic and intrinsic dignity and rights flow from our status as created by God. Justice presupposes Rights. And freedom, equality, fraternity and liberty presuppose justice (justice as giving the other person their due).

[inocente]

Originally Posted by Theophorus

Or is there some fundamental attribute of humanity on which we can base human rights without reference to a legislator or to God?

Yes, you can derive them directly from the Golden Rule.

(I guess that strictly speaking what is derived is a set of statements about dignity and justice, which can then be converted into the modern form of rights).

[Gaber]

Originally Posted by Theophorus

Naturally as a Catholic I see my creation by God as a human being as the basis for my human dignity, my rights, and so for justice which is objective and which transcends man made law.

but to play advocatus diaboli I ask:

Without direct reference to God, that is to say on philosophical grounds, Is there something we can base such universal human rights on?

Or Would we say they are universal merely by convention and only by virtue of human law?

Or is there some fundamental attribute of humanity on which we can base human rights without reference to a legislator or to God?

I know where I stand but I am interested to hear the views of others

As "God" is ALL, there isn't anything that is not referenced to THAT in Reality. In mentality, that have another story. In that story, universal human rights to thedegree those was percieved, have always been predicated on the ancient idea of th Golden Rule or its forms, that being predicated on the simple commonality of being human. The question often was, though, "who is human?" Slaves weren't. Women in practice weren't. Children weren't. So it boils down to "Who is human?," "Do I identify with/as that human?," And "Will I then treat that human as I would treat myself?"

[sw85]

Interestingly, I referenced "human dignity" recently in another post concerning the "right" to gay "marriage": http://forums.catholic.com/showthrea...79#post9294879

I have heard it said before that this "right" comes from the "innate dignity" of the human person. I would defy that person to explain what this "innate dignity" is, what it means, and how/why a "right" to "gay marriage" derives from it. Incidentally, the person I heard this from was a leftist atheist who had just denied my natural law take against homosexuality on the grounds that "human nature" is a subjective fiction, that the phrase "humanity" is a mere heuristic for describing a large mass of dissimilar people with no correspondence to objective reality. Well, obviously, if he believes this, there is no reason to believe in anything like the "innate dignity" of the human person, anyway. You can derive an understanding of "innate dignity" from a Christian or Aristotelian understanding of human nature, but both of these systems explicitly deride homosexuality as contrary to man's dignity. Man's dignity consists in him doing that which is consistent with his nature, i.e., in becoming an excellent, exemplary human. This is clearly inconsistent with homosexuality in general. You certainly can't derive such an understanding from a system that denies there is such a thing as "humanity" or "human nature," much less "God."