Advertisement

Human Rights Review

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 331–348 | Cite as

Rethinking Dignity

  • Kristi GiselssonEmail author
Article

Abstract

The concept of dignity is widely debated as to its efficacy as a ground upon which to base respect particularly in relation to human rights. Traditional concepts of inherent dignity associate dignity with the possession of rationality and autonomy, which consequently excludes non-rational humans from being viewed as possessing inherent dignity and therefore equal and inherent worth. This paper offers a theory of inherent dignity based on an account of a common humanity within which all humans might be seen as possessing inherent worth and, therefore, deserving of being recognized and respected equally as ends in themselves. The theory is based on the communal practice and expectation of moral accountability, a practice that can be viewed as taking place universally both between and within human communities.

Keywords

Inherent dignity Moral accountability Non-rational humans Human rights Animals 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am deeply grateful for the invaluable advice of Jeff Malpas regarding earlier formulations of the concept of communal accountability. I am also much indebted to the insightful and helpful comments of three anonymous reviewers, and to the generous and detailed eye of Jennifer Francis.

References

  1. Aristotle (1941) The basic works of Aristotle. R McKeon (ed). Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashford E (2000) Utilitarianism, integrity, and partiality. J Philos 97(8):421–439Google Scholar
  3. Australian Government (2008) Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples. Australian Government. https://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-country/our-people/apology-to-australias-indigenous-peoples
  4. Bagaric M, Allan J (2006) The vacuous concept of dignity. J Hum Rights 5(2):257–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett C (1991) Wittgenstein on ethics and religious belief. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Brännmark J (2017) Respect for persons in bioethics: Towards a human rights-based account. Hum Rights Rev 18(2):171–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clendinnen I (2005) Dancing with strangers: Europeans and Australians at First Contact. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Coliva A (2010) Was Wittgenstein an epistemic relativist? Philosophical Investigations 33(1):1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9205.2009.01394.x Google Scholar
  9. Darwall S (2006) The second person standpoint: Morality, respect and accountability. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. Darwall S (2007) Reply to Korsgaard, Wallace, and Watson. Ethics 118(1):52–69Google Scholar
  11. Diamond C (1991) The realistic spirit: Wittgenstein, philosophy and the mind. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Donnelly J (2015) Normative versus taxonomic humanity: Varieties of human dignity in the Western tradition. J Hum Rights 14(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fanon F (1982) The wretched of the Earth. Grove Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Fanon F (1986) Black skin, white masks. Pluto, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Giselsson K (2007) Assessing an alternative grammar: Are identity, respect and justice possible within posthumanism? In: Connolly J, Leach M, Walsh L (eds) Recognition in politics: Theory, policy and practice. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle, pp. 65–83Google Scholar
  16. Giselsson K (2012) Grounds for respect: Particularism, universalism, and communal accountability. Lexington Books, Lantham MDGoogle Scholar
  17. Giubilini A, Minerva F (2013) After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live? J Med Ethics 39(5):261–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Griffin J (2008) On human rights. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hooks B (1993) Sisters of the yam: Black women and self-recovery. South End Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Hume D (1975) Enquiries concerning human understanding and concerning the principles of morals. Selby-Brigge LA (ed) Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kant I (1948) The moral law or Kant’s groundwork of the metaphysic of morals, Paton HJ (trans.). Hutchinson & Co, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Kipling R (1899/1997) The white man’s burden. Fordham University Internet Modern History Sourcebook. Available http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/kipling.asp Accessed 2 Jan. 2017
  23. Kittay EF (2005) At the margins of moral personhood. Ethics 116(1):100–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kleinig J, Evans N (2013) Human flourishing, human dignity, and human rights. Law Philos 32(5):539–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Korsgaard C (1996)Sources of normativity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Langton M (2003) Correspondence regarding Germaine Greer’s Whitefella Jump Up. Quarterly Essay 12:77–83Google Scholar
  27. Macklin R (2003) Dignity is a useless concept. B M J 327(7429):1419–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mancilla A (2013) The bridge of benevolence: Hutscheson and Mencius. Dao 12:57–72. doi  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-012-9313-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McMahan J (1996) Cognitive disability, misfortune and justice. Philos Public Aff 25:3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McMahan J (2002) The ethics of killing: Problems at the margins of life. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moraga C, Anzaldua G (eds) (1983) This bridge called my back: Writings by radical women of color. Kitchen Table – Women of Color Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Nussbaum M (2006) Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Nussbaum M (2011) Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. O'Grady P (2004) Wittgenstein and relativism. Int J of Philos Stud 12(3):315–337. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0967255042000243975 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pettit P (1988) The consequentialist can recognise rights. Philos Q 38(150):42–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pufendorf S (1998) De jure naturae et gentium, 2 vols. Böhling F (ed.) Vols 4.1-2: Text. Akademie, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  37. Putnam H (1995) Renewing philosophy. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Regan T (2001) The radical egalitarian case for animal rights. In Pojman LP (ed.) environmental ethics: Readings in theory and application. Wadsworth, Belmont CAGoogle Scholar
  39. Rhees R (1970) Discussions on Wittgenstein. Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Rodriguez PA (2015) Human dignity as an essentially contested concept. Camb Rev Int Aff 28(4):743–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. SBS (2002–2008) First Australians, Episode One, “They Have Come to Stay” and Episode Two, “Her Will to Survive.” Perkins R, Director/Writer/Producer. http://www.sbs.com.au/firstaustralians/
  42. Seidler M (2015) Pufendorf's moral and political philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ZaltaEN (ed). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/pufendorf-moral/. Accessed 6 December 2017
  43. Sen A (2005) Human rights and capabilities. J Hum Dev 6(2):151–166. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880500120491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Singer P (2001) Writings on an ethical life. Fourth Estate, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith A (1976) The theory of moral sentiments. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  46. Southern Poverty Law Center (2005a) “PETA apologizes for ‘Holocaust on your plate campaign,” May 2–6, 2005, http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_tol.jsp?id=1207. Accessed 21 December 2009
  47. Southern Poverty Law Center (2005b) PETA rethinks slavery exhibit. Teaching Tolerance: A Project of the Southern Poverty Law Centre August 15, 2005. http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_tol.jsp?id=1266 . Accessed 21 December 2009
  48. Wallace RJ (2007) Reasons, relations and commands: Reflections on Darwall. Ethics 117:24–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilkinson D, Savulescu J (2014) Disability, discrimination and death: Is it justified to ration life saving treatment for disabled newborn infants? Monash Bioethics Review 32(1):43–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wittgenstein L (2001) Philosophical investigations. 3rdedn. Anscombe E (trans.) Blackwell, Malden MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.James Cook UniversitySmithfield CairnsAustralia

Personalised recommendations