While “dignity” plays an increasingly important role in contemporary moral and political debates, there is profound dispute over its definition, meaning, and normative function. Instead of concluding that dignity’s elusiveness renders it useless, or that it signals its fundamental character, this paper focuses on illuminating one particular strand of meritocratic dignity. It introduces a number of examples and conceptual distinctions and argues that there is a specific strand of “expressive” meritocratic dignity that is not connected to holding a special office (...) or rank, but that is ascribed to individuals who are able to engage in autonomous self-expression. (shrink)

Dignity underlies much philosophical debate, but the concept and its place in a broader theory of justice have received renewed analytic attention of late. In this article, I examine several recent books on dignity: Human Dignity and Political Criticism, by Colin Bird; Human Dignity and Human Rights, and Human Dignity and Social Justice, both by Pablo Gilabert; Contours of Dignity by Suzanne Killmister; and Humanity Without Dignity: Moral Equality, Respect, and Human Rights, by Andrea Sangiovanni. As I outline, each book (...) develops and defends a position in an established disagreement between so-called ‘Naturalistic’ views, which hold that dignity inheres in natural properties, and ‘Conventionalist’ perspectives, which hold that dignity is socially defined. With these contemporary accounts in mind, I expose the contours of this disagreement and suggest that further work should focus on developing a hybrid conception of dignity consistent with Naturalism and Conventionalism. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungNicht erst seit Ruth Macklins einflussreichem Aufsatz „Dignity is a useless concept“ ist eine breite Debatte um Sinn und Unsinn des Begriffs der Menschenwürde in der Medizinethik entbrannt. In diesem Beitrag möchte ich mein Augenmerk auf die von Macklin prominent gemachte Substitutionsthese richten. In ihrer einflussreich gewordenen Fassung propagiert diese eine Ersetzung des Menschenwürdebegriffs durch denjenigen der Autonomie. Doch was ist damit genau gemeint? – Ausgehend von einer Analyse von Macklins Argumenten möchte ich zeigen, unter welchen Bedingungen die Substitutionsthese die (...) von ihren Vertretern häufig in den Vordergrund gestellten eleminativen Ergebnisse zeitigt – die Rede von einem eigenständigen begrifflichen Gehalt von „Würde“ sollte aufgegeben werden. Im Verlauf der Untersuchung werden auch die Vorzüge einer solchen Position gegenüber stärker eliminativ auftretenden Standpunkten und Positionen deutlich, die den Ausdruck als berechtigt, aber unanalysierbar betrachten. (shrink)

Nicht erst seit Ruth Macklins einflussreichem Aufsatz „Dignity is a useless concept“ ist eine breite Debatte um Sinn und Unsinn des Begriffs der Menschenwürde in der Medizinethik entbrannt. In diesem Beitrag möchte ich mein Augenmerk auf die von Macklin prominent gemachte Substitutionsthese richten. In ihrer einflussreich gewordenen Fassung propagiert diese eine Ersetzung des Menschenwürdebegriffs durch denjenigen der Autonomie. Doch was ist damit genau gemeint? – Ausgehend von einer Analyse von Macklins Argumenten möchte ich zeigen, unter welchen Bedingungen die Substitutionsthese die (...) von ihren Vertretern häufig in den Vordergrund gestellten eleminativen Ergebnisse zeitigt – die Rede von einem eigenständigen begrifflichen Gehalt von „Würde“ sollte aufgegeben werden. Im Verlauf der Untersuchung werden auch die Vorzüge einer solchen Position gegenüber stärker eliminativ auftretenden Standpunkten und Positionen deutlich, die den Ausdruck als berechtigt, aber unanalysierbar betrachten. (shrink)

I reconsider the concept of dignity in several ways in this article. My primary aim is to move dignity in a more relational direction, drawing on care ethics to do so. After analyzing the power and perils of dignity and tracing its rhetorical, academic, and historical influence, I discuss three interventions that care ethics can make into the dignity discourse. The first intervention involves an understanding of the ways in which care can be dignifying. The second intervention examines whether the (...) capacity to care should be considered a distinguishing moral power – as rationality often is – in light of which humans have dignity. In the third intervention, I cast dignity as a fundamentally relational concept and argue that relationality is constitutive not only of dignity but also of the wider enterprise of normativity. I understand relationality as the condition of connection in which all human beings stand with some other human beings. A thought experiment involving the last person on earth helps to reframe the normative significance of human relatedness. Dignity emerges as fundamentally grounded in relationality. (shrink)

The goal of this paper is to sketch and defend a novel conception of dignity. I begin by offering three desiderata that a theory of dignity should be able to satisfy: it should be able to explain why all human beings are owed respect, and what kind of respect we are owed; it should be able to explain how acts such as torture damage dignity, and what kinds of harms this brings about; and finally, it should be able to explain (...) why dignity is held to a higher degree by certain individuals. After demonstrating that the dominant, Kantian-inspired conception of dignity cannot fulfill these desiderata, I develop a novel conception of dignity that centers around the role of normative standards. Dignity, on this conception, involves being subject to, and then upholding, relevant normative standards; to violate someone’s dignity is to prevent them from upholding those standards. Importantly, these standards can have either a subjective or a communal source, which in turn explains both the agential and social harms that accompany dignity violations. I then draw on the idea of social dignity to explain human dignity. Unlike the dominant philosophical conception, I take human dignity to be a status that is conferred, rather than a status that is inherent. (shrink)

As many scholars have noted, the concept of “dignity” has historically been defined in several ways, creating conflict and confusion when the concept is invoked in the present. The concept has also been historically exclusive of various groups of individuals; some contemporary accounts still do not understand certain individuals with disabilities as possessing dignity. I examine the strength of three strands of dignity definitions and determine whether any groups are unjustifiably excluded due to disability status. Eva Kittay puts forward a (...) theory that purports to include all humans which, although promising, is vulnerable to critique. I offer revisions of Kittay’s account that address the charge of over-inclusion. However, I note the lingering issues with my revision, particularly that even the best version of Kittay’s account requires the acceptance of some sort of speciesism. (shrink)