The contribution starts with the observation that Kant mentioned human dignity in his main works with a great variety of emphasis. In the Groundwork of 1785, we find significant treatment and again in the Doctrine of Virtue of 1798, but none in the Critique of Practical Reason of 1788 or in the Doctrine of Right of 1797. This difference in emphasis needs explanation. In the Groundwork human dignity is not attached to the second formula of the categorical imperative, the formula (...) of self-purposefulness, as is often assumed, but to the third formula of a kingdom of ends. It is there explained as self-legislation. This placement also needs explanation, which this article attempts to provide. In the Doctrine of Virtue, human dignity is then explained as self-purposefulness. Kant thus changed his understanding of human dignity from the Groundwork to the Doctrine of Virtue. The question is: Why? (shrink)

Contributors from several countries discuss the central moral issues arising in the emerging global order: the responsibilities of the strongest societies, moral priorities for the next decades, and the role of intellectuals in view of the huge gap between widely expressed moral ambitions and prevailing political and economic realities.

Human dignity seems very important to us. At the same time, the concept ‘human dignity’ is extraordinarily elusive. A good way to approach the questions “What is it?” and “Why is it important?” is to raise another question first: In virtue of what do human beings have human dignity? Speciesism – the idea that human beings have a particular dignity because they are humans – does not seem very convincing. A better answer says that human beings have dignity because and (...) insofar as they are persons. I discuss several versions of this idea as well as several objections against it. The most promising line of analysis says that human beings cannot survive psychologically without a very basic form a recognition and respect by others. The idea that humans have a special dignity is the idea that they owe each other this kind of respect. All this also suggests that human dignity is inherently social. Non-social beings do not have dignity – nor do they lack it. It is because we are social animals of a certain kind that we have dignity – not so much because we are rational animals. (shrink)

Is self-respect a necessary condition for human dignity ? On the one hand, if it were a necessary condition, we could neither respect nor violate the human dignity of small children, severely mentally disabled and unconscious persons, which would certainly be an absurd consequence. On the other hand, it seems to be characteristic for violations of human dignity that they are humiliating for the victim, and humiliation usually is construed as a violation of self-respect. The dilemma is solved when we (...) realize that self-respect is a disposition to take care of one’s personal dignity, and that human dignity basically consists in having the opportunity of maintaining one’s personal dignity. Since personal dignity does not disappear when a person looses her ability to take care of it, respecting human dignity may consist in taking care of someone’s personal dignity who has lost self-respect. Therefore, self-respect is not necessary for human dignity. (shrink)