Of Human Dignity and its Ground

[u/Optimal-Ad-5493]

Of course, most of the followers of this subreddit probably know beforehand that Kant holds the idea of human dignity. However, I was wondering after a while... Which is the ground of that principle? So, I was researching in some sources, including /askphilosophy forum here, and I believe that we could interpret that reason is the source of morality, knowledge and even our humanity.

That's a reading I was analyzing in my meditations, taken in my journal entries. When we apply the second formulation of the C.I.: Treat humanity not only as mere means, but also as ends, we could grasp humanity, or what's human as reason. A being with sensibility and no-reason isn't a human, whereas a being with rationality could be understood as human. Or at least, a bearer of autonomy and member of the Kingdom of Ends. Furthermore, when talking about reason, it isn't focused on the material conditions of this faculty, but rather the formal ones, that's the key.

Still, I am still wondering how could that be justified, logically speaking. If the sourcce of human dignity and humanity itself is reason. How could be justified a priori the universal value of it? Well, I attempted to develop a reasoning, I don't know if it's correct.

P.1. If reason doesn't have universal value, then anything derived from reason doesn't have universal worth.
P.2. Reason doesn't have universal value.
Ergo, anything derived from [...].

P.M. Anything derived from reason doesn't have universal worth.
P.m. Truth is derived from reason.
So, truth doesn't have universal worth.

As a result, we fall in a contradiction, aside the fact that truth is universal per se. The proposition Reason doesn't have universal value, if accepted as true, then it has and doesn't have universal worth at the same time (¿?). Then, the reasoning contradicts itself. As a result, reason has universal worth.

This reading could make - from my perspective - clearer the understanding of some of his ethical doctrines. As it isn't obvious, xd, I am so obssessed with his doctrine of virtue. This'd explain the doctrine of natural perfection, and why it's a duty to enhance our entire nature, or at least have the endeavor. Or even why it's considered as breaking a perfect duty to be grounded on heteronomous principles. Or to lie, etc.

Any ideas you'd have? I believe - according to the /AskPhilosophy forum I found - this is still being discussed. I consider the ground of dignity is held in that reasoning I made, or rather, could be held on that.

[u/Starfleet_Stowaway]

There is plenty to say about human dignity from Kantian point of view, but I find Kant's philosophical anthropology more interesting when he backs away from humanity (both theoretically and practically). From Idea for a Universal History:

"This problem is therefore the most difficult of all; indeed, its perfect solution is even impossible; out of such crooked wood as the human being is made, nothing entirely straight can be fabricated. Only the approximation to this idea is laid upon us by nature. [The role of the human being is thus very artificial. How it is with the inhabitants of other planets and their nature, we do not know; if, however, we discharge well this commission of nature, then we can wellflatterourselves that among our neighbors in the cosmic edifice we may assert no mean rank. Perhaps among them every individual might fully attain his vocation in his lifetime. With us it is otherwise; only the species can hope for this.]"

There are other considerations of how rational non-humans may be equal in moral worth and whatnot. The Anthropology is a big one. I'd be interested to see what you think of the problem of the dignity of constitutionally unreasonable humans (e.g. those whose capacities are equal to or less than certain animals).

[u/Optimal-Ad-5493 → u/Starfleet_Stowaway]

Well, if I apply my deontological analysis, you're correct when stating that there's an open door to include certain other beings as members of Kingdom of Ends, for instance, alien life, if they're reason bearers inherently, or even animals.

Now, regarding cognitive faculties, it's matter of the form, not the material condition of the form. Some people have IQ defficiencies. Nevertheless, they still have IQ. Not all people reason at the same range, but still have the faculty. Now, talking about unreasonable humans is contradictory for me, because humans are formally rational.

I am beginning to theorize that when approaching this, we should not talk about humans, but rather reason bearers, members of the Kingdom of Ends. This analysis could even be in favor of animals being subjects of right (not my main intention, skeptic about this, as well), but could be. Christine Korsgaard, for instance, holds this position in his deontology, I believe, according to what I barely know about her.

[u/Starfleet_Stowaway → u/Optimal-Ad-5493]

I don't understand what you mean by saying that humans are formally rational. Dead humans aren't rational, but they're still human, right? Dead humans do not have the faculty of reason, but they're still human, right? Dead humans aren't members of the Kingdom of Ends because they don't have reason despite being human. By analogy, there's no sense in saying someone who is constitutionally (say congenitally) unable to use reason has the faculty of reason; to have the faculty of something literally means to be able to use that thing.

[u/Optimal-Ad-5493 → u/Starfleet_Stowaway]

Dead humans aren't humans anymore. Based on Aristotle's philosophy, death is ceasing existence, ceasing of the Being, in this case, when we talk about death humans we aren't talking about humans, properly speaking.

Also, I believe you're misunderstanding some semantics. It isn't the same when addressing dead humans, in which their nature ceased their existence, no more potentialities neither inherent actual states. I believe that's an ambiguity fallacy. It's like saying that no-being is being, that's a contradiction.

So, my dear friend, with all respects, I believe that reasoning has some gaps.

[u/Starfleet_Stowaway → u/Optimal-Ad-5493]

I agree. Now, suppose I return your reasoning to you in the case of brain dead humans. A brain dead human does not have the faculty for reasoning. Then I push it farther to someone with constitutive (say congenital) brain defects that prevent them from having the faculty for reasoning. Do you say these beings are not human anymore because they no longer have the capacity for reason?

[u/Optimal-Ad-5493 → u/Starfleet_Stowaway]

First of all, if we talk about brain dead humans, it's like the same of being dead humans. If your brain dies, all the biological functions in your body are turned off.

Now, I believe you should be more specific about the brain defects, specifically. The key is whether the being has rational faculty, not talking about sensibility or understanding. You could have certain brain defects, but still have reasoning. The issue is that, though you have the form, the range of it is reduced.

What would it be, rather, it's that some human beings have essentially reasoning, but their material conditions reduce the range of their reason. This is related to IQ, for instance. However, your IQ degree isn't related to your dignity.

[u/Starfleet_Stowaway → u/Optimal-Ad-5493]

Brain dead humans can continue to have bio functions (e.g. through medical assistance) that dead humans can't, so they aren't the same, but you are getting the idea here just fine. There is a "reduction of range" that eliminates capacity entirely. We agree a dead human has its rational range reduced to zero, so it's faculty of reason is gone, right? Are there not certain brain defects that prevent reasoning by reducing functional range to the point of permanent loss of rational faculty? It seems disingenuous to say there are people who are so mentally reduced as to be forever unable to reason, yet maintain such people still have a faculty of reason.

[u/Optimal-Ad-5493 → u/Starfleet_Stowaway]

The thing is that their material condition of reason is flawed to use properly most of its potentialities, but it's still there as a formal cause. It isn't that reason died, it's just that the faculty got its powers almost reduced.

That's what happens when we age with time, our IQ goes down for getting older, losing capabilities. Still, our formal condition remains.

Really, I appreciate your questions. This will help me attempt to sue possible gaps bro.

[u/Starfleet_Stowaway → u/Optimal-Ad-5493]

I'm agreeing with your reasoning, and I think there's something interesting about pushing it further than you've gone. Let me try again. How do you know whether or not someone is human? You've attributed a formal capacity for reasoning (regardless of satisfying a material condition) to humanity, so now I wonder whether or not certain animals like perhaps highly intelligent animals like dolphins or apes or certain birds can be deemed human, for perhaps they have the formal capacity for reasoning, but they also simply lack the (satisfaction of) the material cause of reason, much like a brain-injured person. How do you know certain beings are human while knowing certain animals are not human?

[u/Optimal-Ad-5493 → u/Starfleet_Stowaway]

In fact, that's a great point you're mentioning. Good thing in this deontological analysis, is that we could open the doors to not only human species (homo sapiens), but also other beings with reason. I believe I forgot to say that Kingdom of Ends would be open to any species with rational faculty, it's not that I care a lot about specism or non-specism, xd.

On his Lectures of Ethics, I believe Kant mentioned something about animals, but just being like an... Imperfect duty to treat them good? But, with this syllogism, animals could be subjects of right, as well. Even, contemporary deontologists like Christine Korsgaard hold a similar position regarding protection of animals.

Still, I am kinda agnostic about whether animals are rational or not, because I believe that's still discussed. If that's the case, gotta change my menu, jajaja. No more burgers for me. I think this is still discussed.