Kant’s Conception of Human Dignity and the Importance of Singularity within Commonality
Authors: Francisco Lobo
Kant’s household theory of human dignity as a common feature of all rational beings is the starting point of any intellectual endeavor to unravel the implications of this normative notion. Yet, it is incomplete, as it neglects considering the importance of the singularity or uniqueness of the individual. In a first, deconstructive stage, this paper describes the Kantian account of human dignity as one among many conceptions of human dignity. It reads carefully into the original wording used by Kant in German and its English translations, as well as the works of modern commentators, to identify its shortcomings. In a second, constructive stage, it then draws on the theories of Aristotle, Alexis de Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill, and Hannah Arendt to try and enhance the Kantian conception, in the sense that these authors give major importance to the singularity of the individual. The Kantian theory can be perfected by including elements from the works of these authors, while at the same time being mindful of the dangers entailed in focusing too much on singularity. The conclusion of this paper is that the Kantian conception of human dignity can be enhanced if it acknowledges that not only morality has dignity, but also the irreplaceable human individual to the extent that she is a narrative, original creature with the potential to act morally.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2576980Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 709
 Arthur Schopenhauer, Parerga and Paralipomena (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 460.
 Cited in Michael Rosen, Dignity. It’s history and meaning (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012), p. 1; Christopher McCrudden, “Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights,” The European Journal of International Law 19:4 (2008): 661.
 Arthur Schopenhauer, The world as will and representation (New York: Dover Publications, 1969).
 Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge: Harvard Classics, 1914), par. 69.
 Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 138; Michael Meyer, “Kant’s concept of dignity and modern political thought,” History of European Ideas 8:3 (1987): 320.
 Oliver Sensen, “Kant’s Conception of Human Dignity,” Kant-Studien 100 (2009): 310.
 Kant, op. cit. (1996), p. 139; Meyer, op. cit., p. 329; Jeremy Waldron, “Citizenship and Dignity,” in Christopher McCrudden (ed.), Understanding Human Dignity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 327-343.
 Bundesverfassungsgericht, Feb. 15, 2006, 115 BVerfGE 118, pars. 118 et seq. Online: https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2006/02/rs20060215_1bvr035705en.html.
 The difference is not at all trivial, as noted by Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem (London: Penguin Classics, 2006).
 Samuel Kerstein, Kant’s Search for the Supreme Principle of Morality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 2.
 Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (Indiana: The liberty Fund, 2008), Book II, p. 281.
 George Wright, “Second Thoughts: How Human Cloning Can Promote Human Dignity,” Valparaiso University Law Review 35:1 (2000): 17.
 Thomas Hill, “Kantian perspectives on the rational basis of human dignity,” in Marcus Düwell et al (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Human Dignity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 217.
 Philippe-André Rodriguez, “Human dignity as an essentially contested concept,” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 28:4 (2015): 743-756.
 W.B. Gallie, “Essentially Contested Concepts,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56 (1955-1956): 168.
 H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law, 3rd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 159; John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2005), p. 5.
 Ronald Dworkin, Law’s Empire (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1998), p. 71.
 Jeremy Waldron, “Is the Rule of Law and Essentially Contested Concept (in Florida),” Law and Philosophy 21 (2002): 149.
 Andrea Sangiovanni, Humanity without dignity. Moral equality, respect, and human rights (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2017), p. 15.
 Jeremy Waldron, One Another’s Equals. The Basis of Human Equality (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2017), pp. 2-3; Jeremy Waldron, Dignity, Rank, and Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
 Jürgen Habermas, “The Concept of Human Dignity and the Realistic Utopia of Human Rights,” Metaphilosophy 41:4 (2010): 464-480; Michael Ignatieff, “I. Human Rights as Politics. II. Human Rights as Idolatry,” The Tanner Lectures on Human Values (Princeton: Princeton University, 2000).
 Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (1999) 1 S.C.R. 497, pars. 27, 52.
 Case CCT 11/96, April 18 1997, par. 80.
 Aristotle. Politics. Book V, 1311a. Online: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D5%3Asection%3D1311a.
 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America. Online: http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/tocqueville-democracy-in-america-historical-critical-edition-vol-2#lf1532-02_label_607, Chapter 7.
 John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (Ontario: Batoche Books, 2001), pp. 53-55.
 John Steinbeck, East of Eden (New York: Penguin Books, 1992), pp. 131-132. On the dangers of using “glory” instead of “dignity,” see Jeremy Waldron, “Dignity and Rank. In memory of Gregory Vlastos (1907-1991),” European Journal of Sociology XLVIII:2 (2007): 201-237.
 Gregory Vlastos, “Justice and Equality,” in Jeremy Waldron (ed.), Theories of Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 52.
 Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition. 2nd ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998).
 Hannah Arendt. The Origins of Totalitarianism (Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1962), p. 287.
 Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
 David Kretzmer, “Freedom of Speech and Racism,” Cardozo Law Review 8 (1986-1987): 482.
 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948), art. II; Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, art. 6.
 UN General Assembly Resolution Nº 96 (1948)).
 Alasdair Macintyre, After Virtue. A Study in Moral Theory. 3rd ed. (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007).