FIRST THEME – HUMAN DIGNITY and SOLIDARITY

The following readings introduce the first theme we will be touching on over the course of the semester in Foundations of Justice. First, we have a case that raises a question of justice and touches upon human dignity as a reference point for thinking about justice. Next, we listen to voices from world religions on human dignity. We then turn to an article that reflects on legal education and the messages about the law and about being a lawyer that are embedded in the traditional culture of law school.

Next, we read from three schools of thought – Skepticism, Utilitarianism and Natural Law -- on the question whether justice is an ascertainable and attainable goal.

We then look at the classic cases where human dignity comes to the fore -- contraception and abortion, racial justice, and end-of-life decisions --to see if the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, demonstrates that “the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice.”

Class # 1BUCK v. BELL

274 U.S. 200 (1927)

Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a writ of error to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia, affirming a judgment of the Circuit Court of Amherst County, by which the defendant in error, the superintendent of the State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble Minded, was ordered to perform the operation of salpingectomy upon Carrie Buck, the plaintiff in error, for the purpose of making her sterile.   143 Va. 310, 130 S. E. 516. The case comes here upon the contention that the statute authorizing the judgment is void under the Fourteenth Amendment as denying to the plaintiff in error due process of law and the equal protection of the laws.

Carrie Buck is a feeble-minded white woman who was committed to the State Colony above mentioned in due form. She is the daughter of a feeble-minded mother in the same institution, and the mother of an illegitimate feeble-minded child. She was eighteen years old at the time of the trial of her case in the Circuit Court in the latter part of 1924. An Act of Virginia approved March 20, 1924 (Laws 1924, c. 394) recites that the health of the patient and the welfare of society may be promoted in certain cases by the sterilization of mental defectives, under careful safeguard, etc.; that the sterilization may be effected in males by vasectomy and in females by salpingectomy, without serious pain or substantial danger to life; that the Commonwealth is supporting in various institutions many defective persons who if now discharged would become a menace but if incapable of procreating might be discharged with safety and become self-supporting with benefit to themselves and to society; and that experience has shown that heredity plays an important part in the transmission of insanity, imbecility, etc. The statute then enacts that whenever the superintendent of certain institutions including the above named State Colony shall be of opinion that it is for the best interest of the patients and of society that an inmate under his care should be sexually sterilized, he may have the operation

1

performed upon any patient afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity, imbecility, etc., on complying with the very careful provisions by which the act protects the patients from possible abuse.

The superintendent first presents a petition to the special board of directors of his hospital or colony, stating the facts and the grounds for his opinion, verified by affidavit. Notice of the petition and of the time and place of the hearing in the institution is to be served upon the inmate, and also upon his guardian, and if there is no guardian the superintendent is to apply to the Circuit Court of the County to appoint one. If the inmate is a minor notice also is to be given to his parents, if any, with a copy of the petition. The board is to see to it that the inmate may attend the hearings if desired by him or his guardian. The evidence is all to be reduced to writing, and after the board has made its order for or against the operation, the superintendent, or the inmate, or his guardian, may appeal to the Circuit Court of the County. The Circuit Court may consider the record of the board and the evidence before it and such other admissible evidence as may be offered, and may affirm, revise, or reverse the order of the board and enter such order as it deems just. Finally any party may apply to the Supreme Court of Appeals, which, if it grants the appeal, is to hear the case upon the record of the trial in the Circuit Court and may enter such order as it thinks the Circuit Court should have entered. There can be no doubt that so far as procedure is concerned the rights of the patient are most carefully considered, and as every step in this case was taken in scrupulous compliance with the statute and after months of observation, there is no doubt that in that respect the plaintiff in error has had due process at law.

The attack is not upon the procedure but upon the substantive law. It seems to be contended that in no circumstances could such an order be justified. It certainly is contended that the order cannot be justified upon the existing grounds. The judgment finds the facts that have been recited and that Carrie Buck ‘is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization,’ and thereupon makes the order. In view of the general declarations of the Legislature and the specific findings of the Court obviously we cannot say as matter of law that the grounds do not exist, and if they exist they justify the result. We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 25 S. Ct. 358, 49 L. Ed. 643, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

But, it is said, however it might be if this reasoning were applied generally, it fails when it is confined to the small number who are in the institutions named and is not applied to the multitudes outside. It is the usual last resort of constitutional arguments to point out shortcomings of this sort. But the answer is that the law does all that is needed when it does all that it can, indicates a policy, applies it to all within the lines, and seeks to bring within the lines all similar[l]y situated so far and so fast as its means allow. Of course so far as the operations

2

enable those who otherwise must be kept confined to be returned to the world, and thus open the asylum to others, the equality aimed at will be more nearly reached.

Judgment affirmed. Mr. Justice BUTLER dissents.

NOTES

1. Understanding the State’s Interests and the Interests of Buck and Others Similarly Situated. What were the state’s interests in sterilization? What were Buck’s interests in not being sterilized? Is the concept of human dignity reflected in these delineations of the State’s interests and the interests of individuals such as Buck?

2. Critiquing the Court’s Analysis. How do you assess Justice Holmes’ due process analysis in which he compares the “sacrifice” of sterilization with the “sacrifice” of our “nation’s best”? How do you assess Justice Holmes’ analogy to Jacobson v. Massachusetts in which the Court approved of compulsory vaccination? Regarding Justice Holmes’ approach to the Equal Protection claim, does the Virginia statute treat “imbeciles” in state custody differently from “imbeciles” who are not in state custody?

3. Does a judge’s understanding about human dignity enter into his or her decision of a case and crafting of an opinion? Should It?

* * * * *

Class # 2 – Readings on Human Dignity

In discussing Buck v. Bell, we touched upon the idea that human dignity should inform our understanding of justice. But what do we mean by human dignity?

THE BOOK OF GENESIS [Revised Standard Version]Chapter 1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

6 And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7 And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation,

3

plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens." 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." 29 And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

KVOD HA-BRIOT: HUMAN DIGNITY IN JEWISH SOURCES(© 2005 Rabbis for Human Rights)

Melissa Weintraub

Btselem Elohim: Human Dignity Derives from Divine Origins of Human BeingTraditional Jewish literature employs the term kvod ha-briot (the dignity of created

beings), alluding to the Creator as the source of human dignity and grounding the requirement to protect human dignity in the divine origins of the human being. From its foundations, our

4

tradition grants consummate value to the human being, as in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis: ‘Naaseh adam b’tsalmenu’ ‘Let us make the human being in Our image’ (Gen. I :26). For some Jewish authorities, the idea of the “divine image” implies that the human body is the corporeal representation of divinity, a view responsible for many halakhic prohibitions against mutilation or debasement of the body. Others see the soul and intellect as the presence of the Divine in the human being. All agree that both humiliation of the living and dishonoring of the dead are conceived of as direct affronts to God.

Both biblically and post-biblically, the word kavod itself harbors multiple meanings. In the Tanakh, the word appears close to two hundred times, and in rabbinical sources tens of thousands of times. The most prevalent meaning of kavod is honor, but it is also used in the Bible to mean wealth, glory, greatness, majesty, and splendor, usually in relation to the Divine. The word often confers a positive obligation, a heavy (kaved) duty to treat others with dignity and respect. In some contexts, the tradition demands special kavod for designated groups of people: the king; scholars and the elderly; one’s parents (kibud av v’em) and community (kvod ha-tsibur). The term kvood ha-briot – on the other hand – signals a form of unqualified, universal respect for human beings as such, intrinsic to their existence as human beings, whether old or young, sick or healthy, tsaddik (righteous person) or rasha (criminal), independent of social status, identity, or context (see below).

Breishit Rabbah 24 (end). Cf. Sifra, Kedoshim 2:4, JT Ned. 9:4 Ben Azzai says: ‘This is the record of Adam’s line’ is the foremost principle in the Torah. R. Akiva says: ‘Love your fellow as yourself’ (Lev. 19:18), this is the greatest principle of the Torah. You should not say: Because I have been dishonored, let my fellow man be dishonored along with me. … R. Tanhuma explained: If you do so, know whom you are dishonoring – ‘He made him in the likeness of God.’ (Gen. 5:1). R. Tanhuma presents the theological presupposition of R. Akiva’s linchpin moral imperative: God is at stake in human relations, harmed and violated through acts of cruelty and degradation, even in retaliation or self-defense. He also presents a practical implication of his directive: one must not shame and insult another human being, created in God’s likeness, for to do so is to shame and insult God.

Halakhic sources, meanwhile, concur that kvod ha-briot is one of the overarching values of Jewish tradition; marginal disagreement consists only in the scope of its trumping priority where it clashes with other commandments and values. Kvod Ha-Briot Doheh Lo Ta’aseh: Halakhic Priority of Human Dignity

The power of human dignity (kvod ha-briot) to displace other Mitzvoth is a recurrent principle in Jewish law. A passage in BT B[e]rakhot 19b states: ‘Come and hear. Great is human dignity, since it overrides a negative precept of the Torah’. Why should it? Let us apply the rule, ‘There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord?’ [This verse was applied earlier in the text to illustrate that divine honor takes precedence over human honor, and so one cannot desecrate God’s commandments publicly].—Rabbi Shaba explained the dictum in the presence of R. Kahana to refer to the negative precept of ‘thou shalt not deviate’ [Deut. 17:11; that is, the rule that human dignity takes

5

precedence relates only to Rabbinic and not Torah precepts]…but where a person’s dignity is concerned the Rabbis permitted [such deviation].

In this classic text of the Babylonian Talmud (Bavli), the Rabbis rule that their own decrees—in contradistinction to Biblical precepts—may be superseded by considerations of human dignity. The parallel text in the Jerusalem Talmud (Yerushalmi) presents the opinion of R. Zeira that even Torah commandments are temporarily overridden where they conflict with human dignity (JT Kilayim 9:1). The Yerushalmi seems to consent to R. Zeira’s opinion, citing it in another context to demonstrate that a Torah obligation may indeed be set aside for the sake of human dignity (JT Nazir 7:1; JT Ber. 3:1). The Yerushalmi’s seemingly more expansive application of the principle is nonetheless limited to cases in which the dignity of the public (kvod ha-rabbim) is threatened—as in cases of public nudity or burial of the dead; the Bavli’s more restrictive application of the principle, on the other hand, is specifically singular (kvodo) and universal (kvod ha-briot), and clearly applies to the dignity of each individual person.

The Bavli, furthermore, broadens the application of the principle to include positive and/or civil Torah precepts. In other words, human dignity prevails in monetary matters and in cases in which transgression of a Biblical commandment would require abstention rather than active violation (shev ve’al ta’aseh; literally “sit and do nothing”); one may abstain from performing a positive Biblical commandment where doing so would violate the divinity of another person. As Rashi summarizes: “[The sages] permitted many things to be uprooted, even if contrary to the Torah, as a preventive measure or in the interests of human dignity, provided that no positive action is involved but only abstention from action.”

….The trumping priority of human dignity is not unlimited. According to all authorities,

one may not transgress a negative, Biblical command in a non-monetary matter where it clashes with human dignity; one may not murder or even wear ‘mixed species’ (linen and wool together) in order to avoid violations to human dignity. Furthermore, even in cases of rabbinic injunctions, one must do all one can to preempt the conflict. In BT Shabbat 81b. the permission to carry a stone into a toilet on Shabbat is immediately followed by a hairsplitting counterexample; one cannot, for the sake of one’s dignity, pick up a chip in a public place in order to clean one’s teeth after a meal, because unlike one’s choice of toilet location, one could have predicted where one would eat one’s meal and thus have prepared toothpicks in advance.

Despite these caveats, the rabbis rule that the positive obligation to honor other human beings, and the negative injunction to avoid humiliating or contemptuous behavior, takes precedence over all other rabbinic verdicts, and many Torah commandments as well. The rabbis elevate human dignity to such paramount, exceptional importance that they grant it priority over their own authority.

Hamalbin Pnei Heviro b’Rabim: The Sin of Public Humiliation Rabbinic culture denounces public shaming and humiliation and considers it a grave sin,

worth of uprooting one’s place in the world to come, even when done with good intentions, let alone when malicious or deliberate.

6

A lone passage in BT Baba Metzia 58b-591 interprets the verse “Do not oppress (tonu) one another, but fear your God” (Lev. 25:17) as referring to verbal wrongs –inflicting pain through public embarrassment, insults, or other demanding speech. The mishnah on which this passage comments prohibits one from shaming another person, regardless of the wrongs in his past, “for you shall neither wrong a stranger, nor oppress him” (Ex. 22:20). The Talmud teaches that shaming is akin to murder, the equivalent of shedding blood, an irreparable wrong more serious than a monetary wrong because it injures another’s very personhood rather than his replaceable property.

R. Yohana said in the name of R. Shimon b. Yohai, “Verbal wronging is a more serious [transgression] than monetary wronging, since with the former it is written, “You shall fear God.” R. Eleazar says, “This one affects his person, while that one affects his possessions.” R. Shmuel bar Nachmani said, “For this one restoration is possible, while for that one restoration is impossible.”

Boshet: Judicial Redress for Shame “Boshet” is the judicial manifestation of the recognition that shame inflicts unique injury,

over and above any physical harm caused to a person. In a personal injury case, Jewish tort law mandates additional compensation for humiliation on top of damages for pain, medical expenses, loss of time, and depreciation in labor capacity (M. Baba Kama 8:1; BT Baba Kama 83b-84a). The Talmud brings a proof-text dealing with sexual violation to demonstrate that shame wounds regardless of whether physical injury is entailed: “She puts forth her hand, and takes him by his private parts; then you shall cut off her hand” (Deut. 25:11-12).

The rabbis were also concerned about the public humiliation involved in arrest, before a person—presumed innocent—had been convicted through a fair trial: “R. Yossi said to him, ‘Now do they seize someone in the marketplace and disgrace him?”’ (JT Sanhedrin 7:10). The Yerushalmi justifies the arrest only once strict evidentiary criteria have already been met, that is, the court possesses the names of two testifying witnesses who directly witnessed the accused committing the crime, even if the witnesses have not yet appeared in court. As Menahum Elon points out, the presumption of innocence in Jewish law rests on a premise of the inherent dignity of each person; recognizing the shame involved in arrest and detention, the tradition generally allows the court to hold a person in detention pending trial only in cases of severe crime in which the suspect is likely to flee (Shut ha-Rivash 236).

THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD(“Gaudium et Spes”)

Pope Paul VI (Dec. 7, 1965)

The Dignity of the Human Person

12. According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown.

But what is man? About himself he has expressed, and continues to express, many divergent and even contradictory opinions. In these he often exalts himself as the absolute

7

measure of all things or debases himself to the point of despair. The result is doubt and anxiety. . . .

Sacred Scripture teaches that man was created "to the image of God," is capable of knowing and loving his Creator, and was appointed by Him as master of all earthly creatures that he might subdue them and use them to God's glory. "What is man that you should care for him? You have made him little less than the angels, and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him rule over the works of your hands, putting all things under his feet" (Ps. 8:5-7).

But God did not create man as a solitary, for from the beginning "male and female he created them" (Gen. 1:27). Their companionship produces the primary form of interpersonal communion. For by his innermost nature man is a social being and unless he relates himself to others he can neither live nor develop his potential. Therefore, as we read elsewhere in Holy Scripture, God saw "all that he had made, and it was very good" (Gen. 1:31).

14. Though made of body and soul, man is one. Through his bodily composition he gathers to himself the elements of the material world; thus they reach their crown through him, and through him raise their voice in free praise of the Creator. For this reason man is not allowed to despise his bodily life, rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and honorable since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. Nevertheless, wounded by sin, man experiences rebellious stirrings in his body. But the very dignity of man postulates that man is to glorify God in his body and forbid it to serve the evil inclinations of his heart.

Now, man is not wrong when he regards himself as superior to bodily concerns, and as more than a speck of nature or a nameless constituent of the city of man. For by his interior qualities he outstrips the whole sum of mere things. He plunges into the depths of reality whenever he enters into his own heart; God, Who probes the heart, awaits him there; there he discerns his proper destiny beneath the eyes of God. Thus, when he recognizes in himself a spiritual and immortal soul, he is not being mocked by a fantasy born only of physical or social influences, but is rather laying hold of the proper truth of the matter.

15. Man judges rightly that by his intellect he surpasses the material universe. By relentlessly employing his talents through the ages he has indeed made progress in the practical sciences and in technology and the liberal arts. In our times he has won superlative victories, especially in his probing of the material world and in subjecting it to himself. Still he has always searched for more penetrating truths, and finds them. For his intelligence is not confined to observable data alone, but can with genuine certitude attain to reality itself as knowable, though in consequence of sin that certitude is partly obscured and weakened.

The intellectual nature of the human person is perfected by wisdom and needs to be, for wisdom gently attracts the mind of man to a quest and a love for what is true and good. Steeped in wisdom man passes through visible realities to those which are unseen.

Our era needs such wisdom more than bygone ages if the discoveries made by man are to be further humanized. For the future of the world stands in peril unless wiser men are

8

forthcoming. It should also be pointed out that many nations, poorer in economic goods, are quite rich in wisdom and can offer noteworthy advantages to others. . . .

16. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. . . .

17. Only in freedom can man direct himself toward goodness. Our contemporaries make much of this freedom and pursue it eagerly; and rightly to be sure. Often however they foster it perversely as a license for doing whatever pleases them, even if it is evil. For its part, authentic freedom is an exceptional sign of the divine image within man. For God has willed that man remain "under the control of his own decisions," so that he can seek his Creator spontaneously, and come freely to utter and blissful perfection through loyalty to Him. Hence man's dignity demands that he act according to a knowing and free choice that is personally motivated and prompted from within, not under blind internal impulse nor by mere external pressure. Man achieves such dignity when, emancipating himself from all captivity to passion, he pursues his goal in a spontaneous choice of what is good, and procures for himself through effective and skillful action, apt helps to that end. Since man's freedom has been damaged by sin, only by the aid of God's grace can he bring such a relationship with God into full flower. Before the judgment seat of God each man must render an account of his own life, whether he has done good or evil.

BUDDHIST PRINCIPLES FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Ven. Dr K Sri Dhammananda

Superiority of Human Life The duty of a religion is to guide humanity to uphold certain noble principles in order to

lead a peaceful life and to maintain human dignity. Otherwise it would be impossible for us to claim superiority as humans, for we would be relegated to the level of other living beings whose only purpose is to obtain food, shelter and sex. If human beings too spend their lives only to satisfy these basic primal needs, then there would be nothing much to show for ourselves as humans. Humans have transcended mere survival and are capable of seeking self actualization.

In Buddhism we call this Dharma. Other living beings cannot realise this Dharma because human intelligence is superior to that of all the other living beings in the universe. Only the human mind can appreciate the Dharma. It is significant to note that humans are the only

9

living beings in this universe who can conceive a system as complex as religion. Even devas and brahmas have no particular religion.

Although we worship devas or brahmas and do some offerings in their name, we must realise that our human intelligence is superior to theirs. That is why a deva or a brahma cannot become a Buddha. Only a human being can attain supreme enlightenment because only he has the capability to develop his intelligence to the highest level.

Given this intelligence man tries to understand the nature of his existence and to formulate an orderly code of conduct which will make him noble and worthy of respect.

Thinkers among men past and present have pondered deeply on three existential questions: “Who am I?” “What am I doing here?” “Am I needed?”. The answers to these questions provide the basis for him to lead a meaningful existence. We call these the principles of life.

What are the basic human principles? To answer this question, we must first ask ourselves what is the meaning of the term ‘human’. The Pali and Sanskrit languages use the word “manussa” or “manusya” when referring to humans. It is a very meaningful word. Incidentally, the English word “Man” is derived from the Sanskrit word “manu” meaning “to think”.

Humans are the only living beings who can cultivate and develop the mind to its maximum level. Such a living being is called manussa (human). The word “man” is also derived from the word mana meaning mind. Thus one who has a mind to think is called man. With his superior intelligence, man has only to direct and channel his desires and he can make his life to be what he chooses. (Of course when we refer to “man”, here we are thinking of all humans, men and women. There is no need to think that women are in any way inferior to men either intellectually or spiritually or morally).

The Chinese definition of human is “one with a heart disposed to kindness”. In the human heart, there must be sympathy and honesty. If these two qualities are absent, then one is not regarded as a real human being. Western philosophers define “humans” as those who can use their sense of reasoning. Humans are the only beings who are rational in their behavior. Other living beings use only their instinct to ensure their survival, pleasure and protection. When the mind is cultivated by abstaining from evil thoughts and developing the great virtues, one can gain this tranquility which leads to the purity of the mind.

The Nature of The Human Mind

The human mind can penetrate and analyze elements or world systems in the entire universe. Mind consists of fleeting mental states which constantly arise and subside with lightning rapidity. It is a powerful form of energy. There is in fact no energy that we can compare with the human mind. The mind is the forerunner of all things; mind is supreme and all things have their origin in the mind. The Buddha has said, “I know of no dynamic energy, other than the human mind, which can run so rapidly”. For instance, those who have studied science

10

will readily understand the nature of the atom. An atom changes a few million times within a single second.

In Buddhist psychology, we are told that when the human mind changes 17 times, the physical body changes but once. Atoms and the elements also operate on the same principle. Those who studied biology can understand that the cells and everything in our body undergoes change over time. Our mental energy appears and disappears a thousand times faster than lightning. Such is the nature of the mind.

Besides this, the mind is responsible for everything that happens in the world. The Buddha says, “Mind is responsible for everything, good or bad, that exists in this whole universe”. There is a saying “As you think, so you become. All that we are is the result of what we have thought”.

It is due to our deluded imagination, that we blame God, ghosts and devils for our problems. Some people even believe that our suffering today is the result of some ‘original’ sin which was committed by an archetypal ancestor. Then what about animals? They too suffer from sickness, grow old and die. Do they also suffer as a result of their original sin? Plants also suffer from sickness, aging and death. Are they also faced with these problems due to their original sin?

No one can control the mind of another but if one develops one’s own mind, then one can wield enormous influence over others, for good as well as evil purposes. The development of scientific knowledge could be misused or abused by certain people for selfish purposes. On the other hand, the mind can be controlled and used to appreciate and understand the Dharma or the workings of the Cosmos.

By developing the mind, men and women for example have discovered the force within an atom and they have used this knowledge to do a lot of constructive work for the benefit of mankind. But conversely, in the process they also invented nuclear weapons which could destroy the entire world! If mind is not controlled or trained properly, the dangers that may follow will indeed be unimaginable. One example that springs to mind is Hitler who used his great intelligence for evil purposes.

Almost all other living beings are slowly becoming extinct because of the selfish desire of human beings arising from minds which are not trained properly. They pollute water and air and destroy the environment saying that they are developing it, while in fact they are bent on destruction. We must admit that other living beings do not destroy anything to the extent that human beings do.

Three Natures in Human Life

As human beings, we have three characteristics or natures, namely animal nature, human nature and divine nature. We do not have to wait for rebirth in a heaven or hell to experience this. Animals have limited power of reasoning but by using our intelligence, we humans can subdue or control our animal nature and by doing so, we cultivate our human nature and even discover the divine nature in us.

11

Animals have no means to control their animalistic nature because they are motivated almost solely by instinct. But as human beings, using our minds to analyze and reason, we have realized that certain things are moral or immoral, that certain things are wicked and dangerous, and that certain things are good and useful not only for ourselves but also for others as well. That is why humans are placed on a higher level than other creatures. By subduing our animal nature, and by developing love and compassion, we develop patience, tolerance, understanding, unity, harmony and goodwill. These are humane qualities.

The primary purpose of religion is to foster and nurture these qualities. However, we must realize that some of these qualities are inherent in us. We had in fact developed some of these sterling qualities even before religions came into existence. The human mind is so advanced that it could very easily be developed to experience heavenly bliss.

Other living beings cannot do this. The human mind is a very complex mechanism. It can create the worst kinds of hell. Unlike other creatures which kill for defense or food, the mind can make humans kill for greed, jealousy and even for “fun”. And yet he can never be satisfied. As soon as he has satisfied one lust, he immediately craves for something else. As a result, he is constantly unhappy.

Mahatma Gandhi said, “The world has enough for every one’s needs, but never even enough for even one man’s greed”. Human beings are fighting among themselves because of that extraordinary craving for more power, more authority as well as more pleasure.

12

THE DIGNITY OF MAN: AN ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE(Islamic Texts Society 2002)Mohammad Hashim Kamali

Chapter One

The Qur’anic View of Human Dignity

The Qur’anic vision of human dignity is manifested in various ways and in different contexts. To begin with, we read the direct and unqualified affirmation of the dignity of man in the following Qur’anic text, where God Most High declares:

We have bestowed dignity on the progeny of Adam (laqad karramna bani Adama) ... and conferred on them special favours, above a great part of Our creation. (al-Isra’, 17:70)

The text here is self-evident and comprehensive in its recognition of dignity for all human beings without limitations or qualifications of any kind. Thus according to al-Alusi, ‘everyone and all members of the human race, including the pious and the sinner, are endowed with dignity, nobility and honour, which cannot be exclusively expounded and identified. Ibn ‘Abbas has commented, however, that God Most High has honoured mankind by endowing him with the faculty of reason.’

Dignity in other words is not earned by meritorious conduct; it is an expression of God’s favour and grace. Mustafa al-Siba’i and Hasan al-Ili have similarly remarked that dignity is a proven right of every human being regardless of colour, race or religion. Ahmad Yusri has drawn the conclusion that ‘dignity is established for every human being as of the moment of birth’. Sayyid Qutb has similarly stated that dignity is the natural right of every individual. The children of Adam have been honoured not for their personal attributes or status in society, but for the fact that they are human beings. ‘Dignity is therefore the absolute right of everyone.’ Zuhayli has similarly noted that ‘dignity is the natural right (haqq tabi’i) of every human being. Islam has upheld it as such and made it a principle of government and a criterion of interaction (al-mu’amalah) among people.’ It is not permissible to violate the personal dignity of anyone, regardless of whether the person is pious or of ill-repute, Muslim or non-Muslim. Even a criminal is entitled to dignified treatment. For punishment is meant to be for retribution and reform, not indignity and humiliation.

Most of these commentators have made reference, in addition to the clear text of the Qur’an, to the hadith that records the incident where the Prophet saw a funeral procession passing by; upon seeing it, he rose in respect and remained standing until one of his Companions informed him that the deceased person was a Jew. This intervention provoked the Prophet’s disapproval as he posed the question, ‘Was he not a human being?’ The Prophet, in other words, did not consider the religious following of the deceased person to have any bearing on his inherent dignity, which called for unqualified respect. Muhammad al-Ghazali has quoted Ibn Hazm to the effect that a Christian woman, Umm al-Harith bint Abi Rabi’a, died and the Prophet’s Companions took part in her funeral procession. Al-Ghazali then concluded that ‘we

13

would like to see that our relations with other communities are founded on this kind of latitude (al-samaha). This is because we believe that Islam commands us to have good and peaceful relations with those who are not aggressive toward us’.

The Qur’anic declaration under review has also prompted Weeramantry to observe that the Qur’an makes dignity intrinsic to the personality of every individual so that ‘no regime, however powerful, could take it away from him’. This inherent human dignity also ‘provides the basis of modern doctrines of human rights’.

The Qur’anic declaration of dignity for the whole of the human race in the foregoing ayah has, in another place, been more specifically endorsed with reference to the Muslims. The dignified status (al-izza) of the believers is thus expounded alongside that of God Most High and His Messenger, Muhammad: And honour (al-izza) belongs to God, to His Messenger and the believers . . . . (al-Munafiqun, 63:8).

On a more general note, the Prophet declared in a hadith that ‘people are God’s children and those dearest to God are the ones who treat His children kindly’.

The Qur’an and Sunnah normally refer to people as God’s servants (‘ibad Allah), but here they are elevated to the status of God’s beloved children, which naturally conveys a more dignified status.

In the physical world, according to the worldview of Islam, there is no place on earth holier than the House of God, the Ka’ba. Yet the Prophet drew the following parallel to express the extent of the dignity of the believers. The Prophet, while facing the Ka’ba, said:

You are most pure and most dignified, but by the One in whose hands Muhammad’s life reposes, the sanctity and honour of a believer, his life and his property, is far greater than yours in the eyes of God.

These clear affirmations of the dignity of man are in turn endorsed in a variety of other contexts in the Qur’an and Sunnah, one of which is the basic unity in the creation of mankind, and its equality in the eyes of the Creator.

14

THE ANTICHRISTBy: Friedrich Nietzsche

Translated by H.L. Mencken (1895)

5.We should not deck out and embellish Christianity: it has waged a war to the death

against this higher type of man, it has put all the deepest instincts of this type under its ban, it has developed its concept of evil, of the Evil One himself, out of these instincts — the strong man as the typical reprobate, the "outcast among men." Christianity has taken the part of all the weak, the low, the botched; it has made an ideal out of antagonism to all the self-preservative instincts of sound life; it has corrupted even the faculties of those natures that are intellectually most vigorous, by representing the highest intellectual values as sinful, as misleading, as full of temptation. The most lamentable example: the corruption of Pascal, who believed that his intellect had been destroyed by original sin, whereas it was actually destroyed by Christianity!

6.It is a painful and tragic spectacle that rises before me: I have drawn back the curtain

from the rottenness of man. This word, in my mouth, is at least free from one suspicion: that it involves a moral accusation against humanity. It is used — and I wish to emphasize the fact again — without any moral significance: and this is so far true that the rottenness I speak of is most apparent to me precisely in those quarters where there has been most aspiration, hitherto, toward "virtue" and "godliness." As you probably surmise, I understand rottenness in the sense of decadence: my argument is that all the values on which mankind now fixes its highest aspirations are decadence-values. 

I call an animal, a species, an individual corrupt, when it loses its instincts, when it chooses, when it prefers, what is injurious to it. A history of the "higher feelings," the "ideals of humanity" — and it is possible that I'll have to write it — would almost explain why man is so degenerate. Life itself appears to me as an instinct for growth, for survival, for the accumulation of forces, for power: whenever the will to power fails there is disaster. My contention is that all the highest values of humanity have been emptied of this will — that the values of decadence, of nihilism, now prevail under the holiest names. 

7.Christianity is called the religion of pity. — Pity stands in opposition to all the tonic

passions that augment the energy of the feeling of aliveness: it is a depressant. A man loses power when he pities. Through pity that drain upon strength which suffering works is multiplied a thousandfold. Suffering is made contagious by pity; under certain circumstances it may lead to a total sacrifice of life and living energy — a loss out of all proportion to the magnitude of the cause ( — the case of the death of the Nazarene). This is the first view of it; there is, however, a still more important one. If one measures the effects of pity by the gravity of the reactions it sets up, its character as a menace to life appears in a much clearer light. Pity thwarts the whole law of evolution, which is the law of natural selection. It preserves whatever is ripe for destruction; it fights on the side of those disinherited and condemned by life; by maintaining life in so many of the botched of all kinds, it gives life itself a gloomy and dubious aspect. …

15

NOTES

1. Religious Perspectives on Human Dignity. How would you compare and contrast the readings from the various religious traditions regarding human dignity? Do the various religious traditions reflect common understandings of the concept of human dignity? If so, do the various religious traditions come to these common understandings of human dignity because they each ground the concept of human dignity in the same principles?

2. In what ways do the various religious traditions reflect different understandings of the concept of human dignity? Is “solidarity” a corollary of belief in human dignity, i.e., once one believes in the human dignity of every human person, does that mean one must respect that person as an equal?

3. Does Nietzsche fit within “the tradition” of religious writings on human dignity?

4. Choose a single passage from each reading that best captures the document’s teaching on human dignity. Use these passages as your benchmarks while addressing the first two questions above.

16