The Tangibility of Human Dignity

The tangibility of human dignity

Quantifying an intangible requires that the subject being quantified be equated to a tangible object. Even before trying to put non-mathematical nouns into a formula, those nouns must either be expanded or condensed. Anything subject that is in “limbo” (a state in which a subject is neither expanded nor condensed but in equilibrium with its surroundings) will cause anomalies to occur in the equation, ultimately leading to a paradox or a fallacy. In situations where intangible objects are being required to operate like tangibles, results dependent on events or situations will only lead to infinite possibilities without a sense of plausibility. Another possibility is to extend the object to both extremes. If an object is deemed to be be too broad, carefully selecting which operator will be focused on will be of great aid and on the reverse, if an object proves to be too small or specific, broadening out the frame, (either by linguistic or semantic measures) may aid in the conditional, leading to a more specific event leading to a defined purpose of the term. Similarities across the platforms should be evident. Both the tangibles and intangibles should share a unifying idea that will allow the thinker to move between the two cases, thus allowing the intangible to be proven by the tangible. In the case of ethics and morals, due to the broad nature of the branch of study, it will be equated to human dignity and the display of respect and fairness in response to that dignity. If an intangible subject can be represented by a tangible object, then the relationship between the conditionals of both entities, in their respective environments, may offer a solution to the paradox, therefore finding a formula of quantification in terms of human dignity is possible. 

Treating people as an end and not as a means was at the core of Immanuel Kant’s morals. He believed that the difference between animals and humans was the human’s ability to be rational by ignoring their instincts. The most rational way a human can live is to display an appropriate response to another’s dignity. By appropriate measures, the dignity of a person is worth more than any self-serving end. To start the analysis, humans are born to be self-serving. Examining an infant is sufficient in proving this beginning. An infant will do everything in their power to gain whatever function they desire; it is by law of nature their instinct. What this effectively means is that ignoring instincts of self-serving motives, which is done by preserving another’s dignity, proves the potential rationality of that specific individual, ultimately fulfilling the criteria Kant laid out when differentiating animals and humans. The connection between self-serving motives and the preservation of another’s dignity may seem fickle initially but the bond goes permeates that of emotional responses. There is always a choice involved. The choice of which entity comes first and takes priority. The belief that people should be treated with dignity, respect, and fairness is a nice thought but oftentimes, unvalidated; nice because it shows the potential of human relations, but unvalidated because oftentimes, the subjects are not in accordance with each other nor with a retrospective position. There are often many variables in the example of the infant such as the lack of understanding and cognition, the inability to function independently, and the lack of communication skills due to their lack of understanding. This is precisely the reason why a standard of reasoning must be presented. The variables allow for those “infinite” possibilities to take place. Once those infinite possibilities take place, it will be near impossible to pinpoint where exactly the eventual paradox will take place. 

Introducing conventional examples that stimulate the sensations that humans are familiar with is imperative in helping the mind translate foreign or intangible ideas such as morals and ethics. Using a cost-benefit analysis model will ensure that the worth and cost of acquiring something, be it personal gain or preservation of another’s dignity, will be of great use. However, there comes risk in such examples. If the subject/ object relationship from other platforms (tangible and intangible) isn’t adequately paired, the example may only make reasonable sense to the illustrator. This should be avoided at all costs. The purpose of the thought experiment is to make sure the argument is based on a level of objectivity. Once that is sacrificed, the only thing that is left is some personal interpretation of a proposed universal standard. On the other hand, credulous acceptance of a thought experiment will deem the transposition back to the original conditional, unobliging. Not equating the actual nor monetary (if even possible) worth of the subjects, a pencil will be the relative subject to personal gain(g) and travel costs to dignity (d), oneself (A), other (B), and worth (W). Suppose W(Ag)>W(Bd), then it makes sense for A to always choose Wg. However, it does not fulfill the rationality requirement where the ignoring of instincts is what makes a human, human. Understanding that the view of human dignity will always be greater than anyone personal gain is crucial in implementing a standard. W(Ad)>W(Bg) also does not fit the criteria as the gain of personal dignity will come at a cost, namely the benefit of another. W(Bd)> W(Ag) seems to be plausible as long as A understands that the way they display the preservation of another’s dignity is outlined in absolute fair treatment.  W(Bg)> W(Ad) also puts a party at risk of having dignity stifled or lessened. The universal standard is when dignity is always put ahead of personal gain, which maintains the integrity of the entire system and allows for application to multiple environments. Situations where g> d leads to a paradox. If the instinct of human beings is to gain function and personal desires, the rational response would be to ignore that. A decision would need to be made whether the choice to not ignore instincts was made prior or simultaneously; this is important in order to pinpoint where rationality diminished. It is improbable to do so, which is why it is a form of the sorites paradox. 

In order for the inequality to work, fair treatment must be defined and acknowledged. Human dignity and the protection of that dignity have a couple of requirements. First, fairness is not about what “feels” fair and respectful to the individual, rather it is a standard that is to be agreed upon by A and B. Second, dignity must be recognized as a universal characteristic that people are born with, and through actions, can be surrendered or rendered missing. Third, the worth of dignity must be recognized as something that is secured by rational thought and actions. Fourth,  all efforts must be made to avoid a paradox. Socioeconomic and political ramifications must be examined due to some level of utilitarianism being present. Unlike utilitarianism, which focuses on the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people, the principle of humanity states that each individual’s dignity is the primary source of political and socio-economic structure; the individual is responsible for the protection of their dignity along with the display of preservation of another’s dignity. Simply put, the individual matters. But in hindsight, Kant’s moral theory may prove to be inadequate. Kant leaves no room for movement when it comes to criminals or those that are immoral. He places the highest emphasis on human dignity being the end and that everything that the person has done, be it a crime or immoral activity, is overlooked. Rather than looking at it metaphysically with flat levels, viewing the circumstance from a “3D” perspective, without any levels, may deem it accessible to further critique. If the standard is that humans should be met with dignity as an end but there are those that surrendered or forfeited it, it is not acceptable to say that another standard must be arranged. One of the most difficult situations to apply the principle of humanity is to that of criminals and legislation. All agree that criminals are human but how does dignity apply to them? It must first be established that the punishment and consequence is a fair response to the subject. Rendering a punishment is acknowledging the sentience of the criminal. To negate a punishment because of the risk of violating dignity is not only premature but problematic. It would be a violation of their dignity not to sentence a consequence. If a sentence is not given, morality is breached. In order for dignity to have a place in the human principality, morality must be the foundation. To speak of dignity while breaking the fundamental idea of morality would be equivalent to demolishing the needed walls of a home while simultaneously trying to build that very home; it ends up fruitless and a fools’ errand. The question is not whether punishment should be rendered but to what degree. The sentence must acknowledge sentience and awareness in order to lay out a dignified response on behalf of the criminal. Looking at the severity of the punishment and consequences without setting appropriate boundaries for thought leaves too many factors in the air. This is the limit to Kant’s morality if he intended for it to be interpreted in this manner. Treating humans as an end is an individual matter that cannot b empirically proven by ambitious standards that pertain only to the subject. Simply put, not handing down a consequence or handing down an inappropriate sentence to a criminal would be a self-serving input of the justice to play into their own esteem, not to solidify the dignity of the criminal. 

The measures ought to be the same when it comes to legislature, both in the creation and implementation of the law. The protection of individual rights will lead to the preservation and protection of the individual’s dignity. Political parties ought not to look at the citizen as a means to their political agenda being fulfilled but should look to make and interpret laws such that it benefits the citizens. Legislature should benefit the end-user because the end-user is the citizen: a human being. Unfortunately, modern-day politics have fulfilled the opposite. It has put the end-user as a means and not an end. Arguably, politicians have given in to their instincts of self-service and not of upholding human dignity. Without looking into the actual process of making laws (though it may help), the reasons why specific laws and bills exist must be examined. The current laws and bills a country has is a clear indicator of where the country is, both morally and intellectually. As much as it's important for the standard of human interaction to be void of paradoxes so must bills and laws be void of disintegrated motives. Examining Bill HB 1557, which Florida passed, will allow some understanding of why certain bills pass and but more importantly, why it needs to be brought up in the first place. The bill states that "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.” At first glance, it will undoubtedly look like human dignity is being targeted and that this passed bill should either be overturned or revised. Not allowing those who teach students, be it, teachers or staff members, to teach the students about sexual orientation not only belittles those in the LGBTQ community but also the students themselves that may identify his way, so the argument goes. Those that oppose this bill are seen as logical and rational and those that agree with this bill are seen as evil. However, there might be much that is missing when it comes to trying to decipher who is actually the recipient of dignity.

With any bill or proposed legislature, opposition will occur. Rather than looking at the nuances of the bill, examining the moral implications will better serve the purpose of who the bill benefits. The argument is rather simple: all humans are individuals and individuals should be shown personalized dignity or the way they want it to be shown. But therein lies the issue. It is still not apparent which party is supposed to show dignity and which is in line with personal benefit. Both sides say that school aged students are at the center of the bill but one has also explicitly implied that more is at stake for another group of people, effectively taking a more supposed utilitarian approach while claiming that the individual is at stake. This does not serve our purpose of dignity because what is actually argued is not dignity but humanity and yet the type of information and knowledge that is being blocked has very little, if not at all, to do with humanity nor dignity but preference, which is also not explicitly stated but implied. A part of the responsibility of adults in a child’s life is to filter the ideas that come from a world in which information is plentiful, to the point of chaos. The bill is not of restriction but of filtration on behalf of the parents. There are more players in this game than just the education system, the LGBTQ community, the children and the Florida state government. Those who are opposing the bill are acting in a self-interested way where the power of filtration is taken away from the family and into the hands of a group or institution. This is not a game of dignity but of preference because HB 1557 prohibits all sexual education, and not just from a certain group of people, therefore it can be seen that all dignity is observed, no matter the sexual preference. The entire argument caves in on itself due to the fact that they argue individual dignity but in actuality are arguing personal benefit. The dignity of the opposition is not at risk. If, however, dignity does play a part, the benefactor of this argument is not the LGBTQ community but the family as a unit. This ambiguity of semantics only leads to a paradox and violates the laws of logic that must be upheld in order for any system to be established. 

One of the primary objectives of any system is to have a mechanism that helps avoid or solve paradoxes within the set. Further, it is advisable not to change or alter the boundaries of a system to make it fit the set problem. In order to change or alter the system, it must first be acknowledged that the system does not work. Only then should the system replica be altered. The fabric of definition ought not to be altered due to preference. There is a reason why definitions exist and why definitions are solemnly changed. Quantifying morals and ethics in terms of human dignity not only is possible but in some sense be encouraged as it forces integrity in areas such as academics and politics by sensibly laying out the beneficiary and benefactor. Discussions on topics such as morals and ethics often provide no real way to objective solutions and lead to one thinking of their own code. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing but it must be provable and sustainable. Personal code and ethics are one thing but the application of one’s own personal code to the masses should be avoided. It circumvents the possibility of unbiased discussion. Standards exist in everything, and those standards can only exist if it is measured and compared to something apart from the very thing the subject is measuring. The notion that good and bad exists suggests that there is indeed a standard and topics such as dignity and personal benefit are subject to measurement, which implies that ethics and morals already have quantifiable elements within their composition. So ultimately, it isn’t a matter of should or can morals and ethics be quantifiable but rather which system should be implemented to measure such abstract ideas that pertain to all human interaction and it seems, as of this time, the humanity principle lined with Kant’s morals is one system that suffices this daunting task.