MAYETH B.

RAMOS
ARISTOTLE

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF
The Nature and Basis of Human Dignity
By PATRICK LEE and ROBERT P. GEORGE

Patrick Lee and Robert George argue that “all human beings have a
special type of dignity which is the basis for (1) the obligation all of us have not
to kill them, (2) the obligation to take their well-being into account when we act,
and (3) even the obligation to treat them as we would have them treat us, and
indeed, that all human beings are equal in fundamental dignity.”

The paper went on to discuss the following concerns as basis for human
dignity. First, the Problem of Moral Status, tells us “that being a person, that is,
being a distinct substance with the basic natural capacities for conceptual
thought and free choice, is a basis for the possession of dignity and basic
rights… being a distinct substance with the basic natural capacities for
conceptual thought and free choice, is a basis for the possession of dignity and
basic rights.”

The second argument, The Capacity for Enjoyment or Suffering as a

Criterion, talked about Peter Singer’s principle that only people who can suffer
and enjoy can have interests, and those who only have interests have moral
status.

The next argument they expounded on was, The Difference in Kind

between Human Beings and Other Animals, which states that, “Human beings
perform acts of understanding, or conceptual thought, and such acts are
fundamentally different kinds of acts from acts of sensing, perceiving, or
imaging…When persons deliberate, and find some distinctive good in different,
incompatible, possible actions, they are free, for: (a) they have the capacity to
understand the distinct types of good or fulfillment found (directly or indirectly) in
the different possible courses of action, and (b) they are capable of willing
whatever they understand to be good (fulfilling) in some way or other,” this
being attributed to Aquinas.

The fourth argument of the paper was, Having a Rational Nature, or

Being a Person, Is the Criterion for Full Moral Worth, believes that “having a
rational nature, or, being a person, as traditionally defined (a distinct subject or
substance with a rational nature) is the criterion for full moral worth.”
MAYETH B. RAMOS
ARISTOTLE

The fifth argument was Marginal Case which holds that “every human
being, of whatever age, size, or stage of development, has inherent and equal
fundamental dignity and basic rights.”

The writers summarized the arguments into, human beings are animals
of a special kind, which differ from other animals because they have a rational
nature, characterized by having the basic natural capacities for conceptual
thought and deliberation and free choice. Such virtue only means all human
beings are persons; possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity, hence
every human being deserves full moral respect.

The paper makes sound arguments. I too believe that every human being
deserves moral respect, regardless of race, sex, ethnicity, age, size, stage of
development, or condition of dependency. They went on to further delimit what
they mean about euthanasia, “euthanasia involves killing innocent human
beings in violation of their moral right to life and to the protection of the laws.”

This study, indirectly states that abortion, euthanasia or death penalty,

is not an acceptable option to fully exercise the said human dignity. Moral
respect should be given regardless of stage of development and condition of
dependency. The delimitation though states that euthanasia only “involves
killing innocent human beings in violation of their moral right to life and to the
protection of the laws.”

But what if a terminally ill individual makes a conscious decision of

ending one’s life, would that be acceptable? Would that be a violation of one’s
moral right?

We have to remember that as rationality being a part of one’s reason to

have dignity, such rationality of an individual should also be given weight in
making one’s own personal decisions. A human being should be given the right
to decide to have dignity in life as well as in death. Euthanasia then per se, is
not a crime against human dignity but an innate right for moral respect.

On the death penalty issue, I believe that to think of this as against

human dignity is irrational. Moral respect though distinctive is fallible, because
it is limited to other individual’s moral respect. If one harms another, with
utmost disregard of one’s right to life and happiness, if one commits genocide
against society directly or indirectly, is not but right to terminate the moral
respect of the one that caused it?
MAYETH B. RAMOS
ARISTOTLE

We have to remember that our moral respect diminishes when we

disrespect other people’s rights and dignity. Though I agree that all human
beings have inherent, profound, and equal dignity, such lessens when one
disrespects another person’s dignity, we are all limited by another person’s
moral rights.

The issues on human dignity are subjugated to cultural, philosophical,

religious, and cultural tradition of the people. Though the law tries to separate
such on certain issues, such as those in connection with bioethics, it is
unacceptable that choices are dependent on the forms and not substance.

All human beings indeed deserve moral respect regardless of their form.
Such respect should be inherent. Respect though can diminish or lessen as we
go along, because this integral moral respect is part of societal dynamics. As a
society, we have to carry certain group dignity, hence every human being is
limited by everybody else’s.