Do all people have equal fundamental worth and dignity?

[historia]

Do all people have equal fundamental worth and dignity? Why?

[rikuoamero]

We are created in the image of God. Christ died for everyone, no matter who they are or where they live or what they have done in their lives -- Christ died for all. It's true that not all will accept his gift of salvation. Some will reject his offer of it, saying that they either don't believe he died for them or that he didn't need to die for them or whatever. Look at it this way: You prepare lunch for your two kids. One eats it. The other refuses to eat a bite and pushes the plate away from him. That's what it's like re: Christ's offer of salvation.

What it boils down to is this: We have value because we are made in God's image, created to be in a loving relationship with him and with each other. He valued us enough to send Christ and Christ valued us enough to die so that we would have eternal life with him if we choose. Those of you who do not choose it shouldn't complain about not being part of the kingdom of heaven, given that you all get a chance to do so. You can try to make God the bad guy, but your future is based on your choices so please take responsibility for it.

In what does the atheist base a human being's value? If we evolved randomly, purposelessly, accidentally, what makes us more valuable than a termite, a lobster or an orangutan? You can say that the fact that human beings are able to think reasonably makes us more valuable, but again, if we evolved randomly, purposelessly, accidentally, why would we trust our reason? Or whose reason would we trust and why choose that person's over another?

C.S. Lewis addresses those issues in The Abolition of Man, a book I highly recommend.

I'm going to address this by asking you this - did people value each other before Christ died for you (as you believe happened)? You talk a great deal about finding value in people because Christ died, which is all good and dandy...but what about before? If Christ's dying is a cause for you (and people like you) finding value in people, then it stands to reason that you and yours would not find value in people without Christ's death.

Try and imagine a world where people were not created by a god, where no Christ died for your sins. Try to imagine how you would feel towards other people in that world.
Do you value people in that world?

[showme]

Do all people have equal fundamental worth and dignity? Why?

In the U.S., "all the people" supposedly have equal status under the Law to pursue worth and dignity, along with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Are they all "equal" in stature, intelligence, physical abilities, and moral standing, of course not.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 17 by StuartJ]

It was simply a suggestion for a dialogue since the OP wasn't directed at the Christian view alone. Post 15 from Overcomer covers my thoughts in response, so I've nothing to add there.

[RightReason]

[Replying to historia]

Do all people have equal fundamental worth and dignity? Why?

I think so AND I think this is something all human beings know. For example all human beings inherently and instinctively know it would be wrong to hurt/harm another innocent human being. In fact, we see throughout history the only way human beings can justify violence/hatred/oppression toward other human beings is to rationalize to themselves that the ‘other’ is not truly human.

Slavery and genocide are only possible when certain human beings convince themselves that some group of human beings are inferior and worthless (this naturally implies the obvious—that we regard all humans to be of value and have dignity until we internalize otherwise).

Take abortion. Everyone. Everyone knows it is wrong to purposely kill another innocent human being. This is why the pro abortion camp refuses to call the baby in the womb human. They refer to the baby as a fetus or clump of cells in attempts to dehumanize the baby. Only in this way could the horrific action of abortion be justified. Heck, they even have to twist their mission of killing babies with semantics of calling themselves "pro choice". There was a time when cruelty to African Americans was possible because black people were labeled as not fully human. They were seen as 3/5 of a person.

*************

During the Holocaust, Nazis referred to Jews as rats. Hutus involved in the Rwanda genocide called Tutsis cockroaches. Slave owners throughout history considered slaves subhuman animals.


In ancient Chinese, Egyptian and Mesopotamian literature, Smith found repeated references to enemies as subhuman creatures. But it's not as simple as a comparison. "When people dehumanize others, they actually conceive of them as subhuman creatures," says Smith. Only then can the process "liberate aggression and exclude the target of aggression from the moral community."



So, yes regardless of belief in God -- all human beings have equal fundamental worth and dignity for the very reason that we act as if they do -- that is how natural and intrinsic a truth it is.

[The Tanager]

So, yes regardless of belief in God -- all human beings have equal fundamental worth and dignity for the very reason that we act as if they do -- that is how natural and intrinsic a truth it is.

I agree that this is a natural and intrinsic truth, but I'm not seeing how the mere fact of humans acting like it's true makes it actually true. If all humans acted like the earth were flat, then that wouldn't make it true. I think it would make it more plausible until a defeater comes along (like scientific evidence to the contrary in the case of the shape of the earth).

I also agree that the truth of this question is regardless of belief in God, but I'm not sure it is regardless of the existence of God. Can atheism ground this truth?

[RightReason]

[Replying to The Tanager]

I agree that this is a natural and intrinsic truth, but I'm not seeing how the mere fact of humans acting like it's true makes it actually true. If all humans acted like the earth were flat, then that wouldn't make it true. I think it would make it more plausible until a defeater comes along (like scientific evidence to the contrary in the case of the shape of the earth).

Hmmm . . . seems more like a comparing apples to oranges thing. Value/worth/dignity aren’t measurable properties like the physical characteristics of matter (ie: flat earth vs. round earth).

I also agree that the truth of this question is regardless of belief in God, but I'm not sure it is regardless of the existence of God. Can atheism ground this truth?

Yes! Excellent point. Atheists/non believers are free to not give credit to God. However, if in fact God did design the world and everything in it, it still is the way it is – whether they believe created or designed by God or not. Even atheists cannot deny obvious truth (what IS). They are subject to the same truth as everyone.

I feel the following quotes of G.K. Chesterton are somewhat related to this topic. He was a man of great insight and his following words give us something to think about . . .

The thing that cannot be defined is the first thing; the primary fact. It is our arms and legs, our pots and pans, that are indefinable. The indefinable is the indisputable. The man next door is indefinable, because he is too actual to be defined.


It is the one great weakness of journalism as a picture of our modern existence, that it must be a picture made up entirely of exceptions. We announce on flaring posters that a man has fallen off a scaffolding. We do not announce on flaring posters that a man has not fallen off a scaffolding. Yet this latter fact is fundamentally more exciting, as indicating that that moving tower of terror and mystery, a man, is still abroad upon the earth. That the man has not fallen off a scaffolding is really more sensational; and it is also some thousand times more common. But journalism cannot reasonably be expected thus to insist upon the permanent miracles. Busy editors cannot be expected to put on their posters, "Mr. Wilkinson Still Safe," or "Mr. Jones, of Worthing, Not Dead Yet." They cannot announce the happiness of mankind at all. They cannot describe all the forks that are not stolen, or all the marriages that are not judiciously dissolved. Hence the complex picture they give of life is of necessity fallacious; they can only represent what is unusual.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 26 by RightReason]

[Replying to The Tanager]

I agree that this is a natural and intrinsic truth, but I'm not seeing how the mere fact of humans acting like it's true makes it actually true. If all humans acted like the earth were flat, then that wouldn't make it true. I think it would make it more plausible until a defeater comes along (like scientific evidence to the contrary in the case of the shape of the earth).

Hmmm . . . seems more like a comparing apples to oranges thing. Value/worth/dignity aren’t measurable properties like the physical characteristics of matter (ie: flat earth vs. round earth).

I don't think the difference you rightly point out affects the critique. Either way, we could change the comparison through a thought experiment (or perhaps a real life example that just isn't coming to my mind). If the Nazis had won the war and brainwashed everyone who disagreed with them to act as though the Holocaust was moral (which is immeasurable), then would this mean this would be true?

I agree with you about GK Chesterton. I just recently read The Man Who Was Thursday.

[RightReason]

[Replying to The Tanager]

I don't think the difference you rightly point out affects the critique.

Perhaps. At least you’re right – it isn’t a perfect analogy/comparison, however even if unable to adequately communicate it, I think there is a difference.

Either way, we could change the comparison through a thought experiment (or perhaps a real life example that just isn't coming to my mind). If the Nazis had won the war and brainwashed everyone who disagreed with them to act as though the Holocaust was moral (which is immeasurable), then would this mean this would be true?

But wouldn’t it simply prove/demonstrate that human beings would need to be brainwashed in order to believe what Hitler wanted them to? Again your example is showing that truth must somehow be distorted in order for such a situation to occur. In truth/reality -- the dignity of the human person is not subject to what someone else says or believes. A person unjustly treated or tortured has not been stripped of his dignity. All it indicates is there exist some distorted false views out there. An untruth doesn’t become a truth just by becoming popular or common. Truth is unchanging and eternal.

I agree with you about GK Chesterton. I just recently read The Man Who Was Thursday.

Yes, a good one.

[The Tanager]

But wouldn’t it simply prove/demonstrate that human beings would need to be brainwashed in order to believe what Hitler wanted them to? Again your example is showing that truth must somehow be distorted in order for such a situation to occur. In truth/reality -- the dignity of the human person is not subject to what someone else says or believes. A person unjustly treated or tortured has not been stripped of his dignity. All it indicates is there exist some distorted false views out there. An untruth doesn’t become a truth just by becoming popular or common. Truth is unchanging and eternal.

I agree with the final thing you've said here, but to the first part, the distortion is the point. Whatever truth could (at least theoretically) be distorted so that how humans act doesn't match the truth of the matter. You were arguing that how humans act proves what the truth is; that they necessarily match, right? I agree with your ultimate conclusion, I just disagree in how you've gotten there. I would say that your position is the 'default' because we ought to trust introspective evidence unless there is some defeater for that. In other words, I think y(our) opponent would carry the burden to show y(our) position is flawed or that their's is more plausible, but I don't think their position is ruled out by the introspective evidence on "how humans act."

[1213]

Do all people have equal fundamental worth and dignity? Why?

It depends on what you mean with that. I think people have same fundamental worth. People are born equal and should have same rights and freedom, if there is no reason to think otherwise.

But worth can be seen from many ways. For example, person who is not productive has not same worth as person who is productive. Person who murders is worthy for you, if you want a killer. But it is not as worthy, if you want people who love others. It seems to depend on the point of view.