Human Capacities and the Problem of Universally Equal Dignity: Two Philosophical Test Cases and a Theistic Response

Few words in contemporary moral discourse have the same immediate traction as the term "human dignity." Politicians, lawyers, preachers and priests, human rights advocates, academic theorists, and campaigners of all stripes regularly appeal to dignity as the foundational warrant for their manifold causes, even when they bitterly disagree with each other. It may not always be the first claim in the chain of reasoning, but, if all else fails, it frequently ends up being the last. Why, for example, should poverty be eradicated? "Because it is an affront to human dignity," activists tell us. Why should foreign dictators be toppled? "So the universal yearning for human dignity can break free," say opposition leaders and their international supporters. Why should this healthcare, or housing, or debt-forgiveness bill be passed? "Because dignity calls for no less," protestors clamor. Or why should stem cell research be funded? "Because it advances human dignity," say researchers. Why should it be prohibited? "Because it undermines human dignity," respond church leaders. Many agree that animal-human hybrids pose a threat to human dignity. But some also maintain that alleged unfair labor practices, which, depending on the political platform, may include insufficient paid vacation time, do the same. An organization called "Dignitas" in Switzerland offers its clients what it calls "death with dignity," a common euphemism for assisted suicide. Opponents argue that such a practice constitutes a grave violation of human dignity itself.