Originally posted by seer
View Post
the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect.
wiki:-
Moral, ethical, legal, and political discussions use the concept of dignity to express the idea that a being has the right to be valued, respected, and to receive ethical treatment. In the modern context, dignity can function as an extension of the Enlightenment-era concepts of inherent, inalienable rights.
Sacred-
connected with God .....(or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.
Religio-philosophies---the term "sacred" would express the concept of "dignity" better.....but in a "secular"/Atheist context "dignity" is fine....
If all creation is willed by God for a purpose, then all creation has an equal value/is equally sacred. One could hold that all creation has equivalent "value/sacredness" but different inter-relations. Human dignity is the reciprocal relationships between human beings---as the term itself implies....It would be a mistake to apply the ethics of "human" dignity to creations that are not human....such as animals, plants, or any other of God's creations....that does not mean that such creations are not equally sacred...they are simply different....the ethics of inter-relationship/interactions of human beings with all of Gods creations should be based on the the God-given responsibility of being his Trustees on earth.....as caretakers and protectors of his creation....
In Judaism and Islam this sacredness is expressed in what is referred in English as "ritual slaughter" (Zabiha-Arabic, Shehita-Hebrew)
In some other religions (including Christianity?) this sacredness is expressed by a prayer before eating.
When comparing this concept of dignity with that of the UDHR.....
1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
....it seems limited?...when we try to formulate "neutral" ethics based on the largest possible appeal and approval...a lot gets lost ?...
Comment