How can "dignity" be defined in Objectivism?

[Hotu Matua]

Human dignity is frequently presented, in non-Objectivistic philosophical discussions, as inherent to man.

Dignity is derived from Latin dignitas, meaning "precious", "valuable", "deserving".

According to some ethical thinkers, the fact that man is man (e.g. bestowed with intelligence and free will) makes man valuable, regardless of what other people can think.

So all men deserve respect, an ethical treament for the fact of being men (or, as some thinkers would want us to think, because they are "human").

In Objectivist theory of values, intricisism is invalid. Things are not precious in themselves. They are deemed precious by a valuer. This process of appreciation, certainly, relies on objective grounds: on reality. But objects do not have an inherent "aura" of value, independent of a valuer.

If I am understanding Objectivism correctly, I value John because:

1) What John is (a person)

2) What John represents to my flourishing, that makes me act to gain or keep his existence.

Item number 2 is essential for the relational theory of values that Objectivism embraces.

If I happen to meet a serial killer for example, I have no grounds to show him respect.

Now suppose John is a severly disabled but otherwise peaceful stranger, who is highly dependent of other's attention and money to survive.

He values himself somehow and his family values him. But I don't value him a lot. I might or might not initiate an action to keep him alive. If I do, I can help him out of a "reverence for human life".

What this "reverence for human life" stems from?

Or, more precisely, how a basic "reverence for human life" helps me in my own flourishing?

The implications of having a relational, and not an intrinsic theory of values are interesting.

If a mother doesn't value her embryo, and the embryo doesn't value itself because it is not aware of his own existence, the embryo is valueless.

However, if "reverence for human life" is something that helps people in their own flourishing, then the ethical thing for this mother would be to keep the embryo as long as there are no objective evidence that getting rid of the embryo would helps her flourishing more than keeping it.

This argument against abortion would be entirely an ethical one, and not a right-based argument.

According to intrisicist, though, dignity exists beyond any valuer appreciation. The embryo or the person in permanent comma has "dignity" and should be treated with respect.

What are your thoughts about all this?

[Hairnet]

The value of a random human life is worth more than nothing for sure. We are a social race that benefits from having more of us around, this is really the only reason why societies that could barely think could survive at all, and why most people who can't think fall back on collectivism.

I wouldn't call this dignity though. I just recognize the fact that a stranger is probably worth more to me alive than dead. all things being equal, and that minor acts of charity are not sacraficial when it comes to this.

So if a little kid is drowning in a swimming pool saving him is the only rational thing to do because the child is worth more to you alive than dead and saving the kid isn't really all that much work.

Someone who would let a child drown in a pool or anything similar is probably hates humanity and that isn't okay.

[Hotu Matua]

Someone who would let a child drown in a pool or anything similar is probably hates humanity and that isn't okay.

The premise of the benevolent universe could easily be extended to mankind.

Even when we cannot know in advance whether any particular stranger is good or evil in character, the premise make us think that, since rationality is necessary for survival and we have plenty of proof that manking has survived, flourished and produced great things all around us, most strangers must be rational enough as to further our flourishing.

Evil people must be the exception, not the norm.

Otherwise, our civilization would be gone long ago.

I would call this the "benevolent human" premise.

Now, what about the non-right-based argument about the morality of abortion?

According to this view, every case of abortion should be considered on a case by case basis, rather than declaring all abortions evil or all abortions good.

According to the "benevolent human" premise, an embryo will most likely produce a good person, which is a good thing for my world.

So, all things being equal (meaning, not having enough objective evidence that my pregancy and motherhood will either further or hurdle my flourishing) the ethical thing would be to keep my embryo.

There would be instances where the weight of the evidence is against keeping it (e.g. my pregnancy is a product of a rape, or I am ill enough, or poor enough).

But having an abortion just because my contraceptive method failed, in an otherwise healthy, productive and happy woman, might be unethical.

Of course, I am not claiming here rights for the embryo. I am talking purely about the ethical nature of killing an embryo.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Hotu Matua

[Hotu Matua]

Another application of the benevolent human premise, is the deliberate extension of rights to severily mentally disabled people.

Rand vaguely justifed it by saying that they may "improve over time", and pointed out that this extension was a "courtesy", meaning, not derived in the same way that rights are derived from the existence of mentally able people.

To me, a "courtesy" is another way to present the benevolent human premise.

Its another way of saying: "I don't know what kind of people would John become if he wasn't deeply mentally disabled. I don't know whether he would become virtuous or vicious. But I bet for the most likely thing: that he would become a respectable, productive, creative member of the human family. I choose to treat him as such."

The benevolent universe premise (that reality is shaped in such a way that I can achieve happiness if I excercise my rational faculty) and its corollary, the benevolent human premise (that man's nature is such that I can achieve happiness in society if I excercise my rational faculty) are paramount in making Objectivism a philosohpy "to live on Earth".

Do you agree with me?

Any further insights on this?