B. DIVERSE USES OF UNIVERSAL DIGNITY
C. THREE DIGNITIES AND THE TENSION BETWEEN UNIVERSAL DIGNITY AND THE OTHER TWO
D. THE CAPABILITIES APPROACH
Our theme for March is “dignity.” Last spring, when Faith and I were discussing what themes to have for the upcoming year, we decided to include “dignity” because the new article II bylaws of our denomination, the Unitarian Universalst Association, speak of dignity under the “equity” value. The bylaws say,
“Equity: We declare that every person is inherently worthy and has the right to flourish with dignity, love, and compassion.”This has clear echoes with the historic UU first principle:
We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote: the inherent worth and dignity of every person (or every being).So what is this dignity thing that our faith affirms?
Proto-Indo-European is the hypothetical original source language from which the 500 or so Indo-European language. Linguists think that the English word dignity derived from the Proto-Indo-European “dek,” which meant “to take, accept.” By the time it had become the Latin dignitas, it meant worthiness or merit -- suggesting something that is acknowledged or accepted as valuable. When we treat someone with dignity, we take or accept that they are worthy of respect, honor, and esteem. Dignity is conferred by acknowledging worth.
A. HOW THE CONCEPT OF UNIVERSAL DIGNITY EMERGED
Generally, up until modern times, it was understood that not everyone could be regarded as having worth. Stoic philosophers like Seneca (born 4 BCE), and Epictetus (born 50 CE), had a counterpoint. They maintained that all humans have an inner worth due to their rational nature, regardless of external status. But theirs was very much a minority viewpoint. For most of the Roman and on through the medieval world, dignity was reserved for the special, the noble. This meaning is still present in words like “dignitary,” or “dignified.”
Augustine, born 354, did say that all humans have a divine essence, and Christian thinkers have often invoked the concept imago dei -- creation in the image of God -- but not until centuries later did it become popular to say that this meant that all humans have dignity.
In Islamic thought, there’s a passage in the Quran declaring that God has bestowed dignity upon all humans. Muslim scholars Al-Farabi (born 870), and Ibn Sina (born 980), emphasized rationality as central to human dignity. Along similar lines, Thomas Aquinas (born 1225), built on Aristotle, arguing that dignity comes from rationality and moral capacity, given by God.
Pico della Mirandola (born 1463), wrote Oration on the Dignity of Man, which emphasized human potential and freedom, and strengthened the idea of universal dignity. In England, John Locke (born 1632), argued that all humans are equal and possess natural rights. Immanuel Kant (born 1724), transformed dignity into a moral concept, saying that all rational beings have intrinsic worth and should be treated as ends, and not as a means only.
While these philosophers’ ideas were gradually seeping into the general populace, most people still thought of dignity as a property of the dignified dignitaries and not a property of the hoi polloi rabble. Before about 1830, writes Remy Debes,
“neither the English term ‘dignity,’ nor its Latin root dignitas, nor the French counterpart dignité, had any stable currency as meaning ‘the unearned status or worth of all persons’, let alone the grounds of universal rights or equality.”So what changed around 1830? The abolition movement to end slavery. That, and early labor rights movements were driven by the idea that all humans have dignity regardless of race or class.
Finally, in 1948, in response to the atrocities of World War II, the new United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its article 1 declared: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”
B. DIVERSE USES OF UNIVERSAL DIGNITY
The claim that dignity is universal -- an equal possession of every person -- implied a universal moral duty to recognize and respect that dignity. Thus the idea of universal dignity was important to the abolition movement, and the UN's move to protect groups subjected to atrocities in World War II. Indeed, dignity has been invoked in every 20th and 21st century social justice movement, including the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the LGBTQ rights movement, and workers’ rights movements. Policies that ensure access to healthcare, to education, or to social services are apt to be framed as affirmations of human dignity. Advocates of criminal justice reform invoke dignity. The argument that the death penalty is incompatible with the dignity of human life contributed to the European Union banning the death penalty.
These are examples of dignity used as a grounding for individual autonomy, human rights, personal freedoms and protections. On the other hand, conservative perspectives appeal to dignity in support of traditional values, social harmony, and respect for authority. Communitarian perspectives appeal to dignity as embedded in relationships and societal structures, arguing that dignity demands social policies that uphold communal well-being rather than just individual rights. Some non-Western societies critique Western conceptions of dignity for imposing individualistic values that do not always align with their cultural traditions.
You know the stone soup story, in which a stranger shows up in town and claims to have a magic stone that will produce nutritious soup merely by being placed in simmering water. The stranger then coaxes the villagers to make the soup even better by adding some cabbage, some carrots, maybe some beans, onions, et cetera. In the end, it’s all the other ingredients that do the work of making soup.
We may wonder whether dignity is like the stone in stone soup. We get one sort of soup if we add in human rights, another sort if we add in traditional values and respect for authority, yet another if we add in structures of relationships and communal well-being. Dignity may be claimed as the support for any of these, but maybe the human rights, or the traditional values, or whatever sort of soup we may be desiring, can stand on its own. We don’t need that stone thrown in the pot. Or do we?
The hungry villagers were unable to bring forth those other ingredients and produce a communal pot of soup until coaxed to do so by that stranger with his stone. So in some sense the stone is not superfluous – it’s necessary.
We have to think of ourselves as beings of worth -- bearers of dignity -- in order to get any other social or political project going. The expansion of dignity to apply to everyone thus reflects a relatively new tendency to want to involve everyone – or as many people as we can – in our social and political projects.
C. THREE DIGNITIES AND THE TENSION BETWEEN UNIVERSAL DIGNITY AND THE OTHER TWO
We may identify three broad categories of meaning that dignity has signified across context and history.
First, dignity as status: noble or elevated social position or rank – dignity as what a dignitary has. This sort of dignity, like the word “nobility,” tends to conflate a standard of character or gravitas with the accident of birth class, though social status can, at least in principle, be attained by those not born to it.
Second, dignity as dignified behavior. This might be gravitas: a poise or grace associated with behavioral comportment. This might sometimes be particularly associated with the sophisticated manners or elegant speech in which the upper classes are typically trained, though it is not exclusive to class. Or it might indicate composure in the face of insult or duress – a dignified response to hardship that people of any class might display. Or dignified behavior might be living with integrity -- living up to personal or social standards of character and conduct, either in one’s own eyes or the eyes of others.
Third, dignity as universal: the unearned worth or status that all humans share equally.
With the first two, one might have dignity – or not. You either have a high social status or it’s somewhat less. You either retain composure under stress or you don’t, live with integrity, or don’t. But this third category of dignity applies to everyone equally. One’s dignity in this sense cannot be increased or diminished, it can only be recognized or not recognized. This universal dignity can be violated, as when we treat people as not having dignity, when we fail to recognize the worth, the value that a person has simply in virtue of being a person. But this is a sense of dignity as something everyone always has, whether it is respected, ignored, or violated. So we have these three dignities:
1. Dignity as high status, as being a dignitary.
2. Dignity as a standard to live up to – an aspiration to live in a dignified way, with composure and integrity, and a measure of poise. And,
3. dignity as universal – as something that everyone has, and has equally, and so cannot be achieved or aspired to and cannot be lost. The first one I’m not going to pay much attention to.
I'm not going to give further attention to the first meaning. I suppose unequal status will always be a thing among humans, and, yes, there is a lot to be said about how higher status is assigned, and how it functions, but a concern with dignity today doesn’t have much to do with who is a dignitary and who isn’t. Rather, it’s those other two that are the concern: acting and living with dignity, and recognition of universal dignity. And I think both of those are important and valuable.
There is something in the area of dignity for us to work on and develop in ourselves – composure and integrity -- and there is also something called dignity that is universal and equal and unearned. And both matter.
There is, though, this rather obvious tension between attained dignity and universal unearned dignity. If we seriously believe in human dignity – and maybe expand the circle beyond humans to a concept of primate dignity, or mammal dignity, or warm-blooded dignity, or vertebrate dignity, or beings dignity – this dignity can’t be gained or lost, and isn’t something to attain.
We might try to deal with this tension by distinguishing between ourselves and others. I might say: for myself, I will aspire to composure, poise, and integrity. I want to live in dignified way, and when I have behaved in an undignified manner, I want to learn from that and get better. At the same time, I will regard others as having inherent, equal universal dignity.
I’m not sure that approach will work. We might cut others more slack than we do ourselves, but if we’re paying attention to standards for ourselves, we can’t help but notice which other people are models for us to emulate and which ones seem to be exemplifying what we’re trying to avoid. Also, if there is a dignity that is universal, then I kinda have to allow that "universal" includes me, too. So I don’t think distinguishing between the way I approach myself and the way I approach others helps with this tension between attained dignity and universal dignity.
D. THE CAPABILITIES APPROACH
I think the idea that will help us here to either resolve the tension or live creatively in the tension is: capability. There is in the world of ideas a thing called the capabilities approach. The capabilities approach was first developed by Indian economist Amartya Sen in the 1980s. Sen argued that traditional measures of well-being, such as income or utility, are insufficient. Instead, well-being should be evaluated in terms of an individual's capabilities to function. Capabilities are influenced by a range of factors, including income, education, health, and social environment.
In the 1990s, American philosopher Martha Nussbaum picked up on Sen’s work and began collaborating with him to further develop and expand the capabilities approach. Her book, Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach, came out in 2000, and is a key work in the development of the approach. Nussbaum’s version of the approach particularly emphasizes human dignity and the opportunities individuals need to lead a flourishing life.
True well-being depends not, or not just, on GDP and wealth, but on whether people have real opportunities to live a meaningful life. A person with the legal right to vote but who lacks education or access to polling places does not truly have the capability to participate in democracy. Providing a wheelchair to a person with a disability is helpful, but real dignity comes from ensuring they have accessible environments to function independently. Thus, instead of just looking at what people have, Nussbaum focuses on what they can do and be.
Nussbaum identifies ten essential capabilities that societies should support to ensure human dignity:
1. Life – Being able to live a full life of normal length.
2. Bodily Health – Having good health, adequate nutrition, and shelter.
3. Bodily Integrity – Security from violence and bodily autonomy.
4. Senses, Imagination, and Thought – Access to education and intellectual development.
5. Emotions – The ability to love, grieve, and form meaningful relationships.
6. Practical Reason – Being able to exercise thought and conscience to make choices about one’s life.
7. Affiliation – The ability to engage in social relationships and be treated with respect.
8. Other Species – Living in a way that respects nature and other life forms.
9. Play – The ability to engage in recreation and leisure.
10. Control Over One’s Environment – Political participation and property rights.
A just society, per Nussbaum, ensures that every person has the capability to achieve these functions rather than merely providing formal rights without real access. A fair and just distribution of primary goods is important, but we must also consider how individuals can actually use these goods in their real circumstances. Can all their capabilities be exercised? Can their capabilities be developed and brought into full flower? Here we have a way to approach dignity that is both affirms the universal and leaves room for the attainable.
What’s universal is that we all have these capabilities. We have the universal dignity that we are beings capable of living a lifespan that our genetics allow –
Capable of the bodily health that reasonable nutrition, exercise, sleep, and shelter allows –
Capable bodily autonomy and security from violence -
Capable of learning and intellectual development –
Capable of loving, grieving, and forming meaningful relationships --
Capable of reflecting on our values and how to live by them in the choices we make --
Capable of social relationships, friendships, and group affiliations within which we are treated with respect –
Capable of loving and respecting nature and other life forms –
Capable of play and recreation –
Capable of political participation and owning things and effectively using what we own.
What’s universal is that we all have these capabilities – and we have the inherent dignity that comes from having these capabilities.
The dignity that is left to be attained is the fuller development of the capability, the exercise of the capability. We don’t always get the chance to do what we are capable of. Of course, no one can do ALL that ze is capable of doing, but one can develop in all 10 of the basic capabilities. A world is possible in which all of us have some chance at all of the 10 basic capabilities.
An individual may attain a life of dignity, may be a dignified person who retains grace under pressure, composure under stress, integrity with poise. Collectively, we may aspire to ensure that everybody has the chance to develop their capability for a dignified life, however they may conceive of it. And both the individual and our collective attainments are grounded in recognition of the universal, equal, unearned dignity that we are beings with these capabilities.
I said at the beginning that the root of dignity was to take, accept. When we treat someone with dignity, we take or accept that they are worthy of respect, honor, and esteem. What Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum help us see more clearly is that it is their capabilities that make them so worthy of respect, honor, and esteem. Some of us haven’t had much chance to do and be what we are capable of doing and being – but the capability alone warrants our respect, our esteem, our honor. And by respecting, honoring, and esteeming every person’s capabilities, we encourage and assist the use and development of those capabilities – and make way for the greater flourishing of all life.
May it be so.
Blessed be.
Amen.
