Talk:Dignity

Definition

I'm not entirely convinced by this definition of dignity. Can't dignity be a quality that isn't bestowed from the outside? Aren't there anarchistic definitions of dignity that specifically preculude "respect" and "esteem" as bestowing "dignity". Does a slave necessarily have less dignity than a king? Or perhaps a slave always has more dignity than a king. I've often thought that dignity had a paradoxical quality in that seeking to be dignified is the least dignified stance possible. I don't dispute the NPOV of this article, I dispute its correctness at all.

On the other hand I think I'd have to be a poet to define dignity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.105.65.5 (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

--

Need the definition of dignity be restricted to only human beings?

--Flame0430 03:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

--

Part of the concept of dignity stems from people whose situation leaves them particularly hurt if it is not naturally bestowed. Think about dignity for one who is dying, one who is gay or lesbian (mentioned as the word is used in an advocacy organization's name), and dignity towards developing youth. It's a moment to engage in an interpersonal transaction to show recognition that one has been there, could have been there, or will eventually be there too.

66.189.247.51 20:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• • That's just as vague and weasel wordy as "pride"... that's why this article needs slash and burn and a rewrite includling all the meanings and lashings of logic and sources.

On raver culture

It's a good thing that ravers value respect, but by exclusively mentioning them, wikipedia makes it look as if they have a sort of 'monoploy' on 'true' respect or something to that effect. However, other creed's also emphasize respect. The muslim, christian, rastafarian and many (most) others claim to value respect as a virtue. So either mention them all or none, I think. Therefore I will remove thius part from the entry.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.151.162.212 (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2004 (UTC)

On DignityUSA

Just as raver culture, I don't think we should list them, for the same reasons. If we list them, shouldn't we also list similar organizations that try to dignify other minorities? And why should we only list an American organisation if there are also similar organisations in other countries? Edit: I now see the reason DignityUSA was mentioned, because Dignity is part of it´s name. Still, I don´t think they should be on the dignity page, but if a vet disagrees with me, go ahead and undo the change.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.151.162.212 (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2004 (UTC)

Marked for deletion

From Wikipedia:Votes for deletion; (decision was to keep):

WP:WINAD. Angela

• • Delete, same reason. Maximus Rex 20:32, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete, ditto. Fuzheado 23:57, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Give it a few weeks on Cleanup, delete if not improved. Andre Engels 11:39, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. Listing new pages here is a waste of everyone's time. It's developing into an encyclopedia entry. JamesDay 20:03, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. Concepts like respect or diginity are hard to write about but hardly needless for wikipedia.
  • Keep. There's much more than what you'd find in a dictionary now. Wiwaxia 04:22, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete, ditto WINAD. Daniel Quinlan 08:19, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • BOTH - keep the article, delete the contents. Dignity shouldn't have to explain itself!

Respect

Most of this should be in the respect article, if anywhere. --Kapow 03:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a sh-tty article, needs to be completely re-done

I'm of half a mind of blanking this page until something more coherent is written. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjwright79 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

• Hear hear... bloody meaningless hippy equivocation

• Agreed, this page is terrible ROxBo 08:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Dignity is the highest value of a man.

I am convinced that the topic of dignity must be written beautifully, as the concept is itself. So I entered the extract from my favorite author S.Soloveychik, the expert in ethics.

During time I am going to add more sense in this article to become a standard article with links etc. So far I read the discussion and realised that people DO want to take everything irrelevant out.

The organizations, which contain a word "dignity" in their name I consider irrelevant because there are lots of companies and organizations, which use words like this and it doesn't mean that they all must be linked.

As we are writing encyclopedia, we must be strict to the point.

I also think that the concept "respect" is irrelevant here because it must be a separate article. It may be added as relevant links though, but I will do that later.

Abuhar Oct, 20, 2006

The new content from the article by Aubanova

I added the whole article, but I still work on links. I plan to link several words when the links will be proper related to this content. As for citation, I don't know yet what way would be better. Anyone can help? Abuhar 24 Oct.06

Here is another trial.

Okay, I see that nobody is actually want to discuss anything, but they don't hesitate to clean other people's work severely. Well, it is always easier to destroy than to create something meaningful. Today I reviewed what was left from my first editing and I worked some more on the text to improve and make the idea clearer. It took several hours for me to write few paragraphs, yes, to create something is a hard work. I will continue with the rest next time. Hope people will appreciate, and that increases my dignity! :-) --Abuhar 05:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguations

I removed the DignityUSA disambiguation link at the top of the article because it didn't seem to be to stand out more than any other article involving the word "dignity", or be likely to be confused with the basic term itself. If someone wishes to create a proper Dignity (disambiguation) article to link to at the top of this one, here are some entries which should probably be included, in the order they appear in an "All pages" query for "Dignit":

• Dignitas
• Dignitas International
• Dignitatis Humanae
• Dignity, Democracy, Motherland
• DignityUSA
• Dignity Battalions
• Dignity (Ar-Namys) Party
• Dignity Village
• Dignity and Shame
• Dignity for Disabled
• The Dignity of Labour
• Dignité (Centrale des Syndicats Libres de Côte d'Ivoire)

Since I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment, I'll leave the actual creation and addition of one-line descriptions for each entry to an interested party. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Putting things in order - "respect" goes to "respect" article.

I made many changes today: moved text on "respect" into corresponding article, so did with links on the concept of "respect." description of DignityUSA added to Dignity-ambiguation.

Well, not much left but it is better a little left than a big wrong impression. Concept of respect can't substitute the concept of dignity. Abuhar 04:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

let's remove the liberal communist propaganda

Dignity is an invention of liberal communist propaganda machine. If you think your dignity has been taken away, it's actually your own fault and you are making pathetic excuses for people not liking you. Get over it losers. Let's change this article to reflect these important points. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.189.49.55 (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

• • Concept of Dignity was existing long time ago, way before communist ideas began to come to people's mind. You need to know history well. Abuhar 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Agreed -- I'm really not very sure how 68.189.49.55 decided that dignity and communism are related. Assuming that 68.189.49.55 is an American . . . he may be surprised to learn that both the United States Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution speak of dignity in their preambles (if not using that exact word).NickdelaG
    • Of course, we could all be communists and secretly editing historic documents. Just saying.NickdelaG

Fair Use?

There's an extended quotation (properly cited, obviously a quotation) in the article. I'm not sure if it's fair use or not. Thoughts? NickdelaG

Ahistorical

It's a bit hard to know where to start with this article, but at a minimum it needs to put the concept in historical perspective. Where is Kant (for example)? This is an encyclopedic topic but I'm afraid that I agree with those who are saying we almost need to statt again. Metamagician3000 01:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Facial expression image removed

Just removed this image from the article; firstly, there's no discussion of facial expressions associated with dignity in the article, and secondly, the caption isn't sourced. (Seems a little vain, too, though I'll assume good faith for now.) Extraordinary Machine 18:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

File:Dignity.jpg

The facial expression of this young male is often associated in the West with the concept of dignity

Picture Deleted!

I thought that picture made the article!Mcalwoden 10:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• That's the face of someone strummin' the banjo whilst sittin' on a hog in the Appalachians.

regardless of his appearance, he IS making the 'dignity face' which cannot be denied. Holding your head up high and staring off into the distance is dignity incarnate.

funny looking kid ROxBo 08:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not an article, it's an essay

The whole start of the article reads like someone's trying to make a case, without defining their terms.

This sort of article is very susceptible to weasel words and loaded language anyway.

(what's a "soul" for example?!)

Articles should objectively report current understanding of a term from as many credible perspectives with as much credible evidence as possible.

"When viewed as an intrinsically defined quality, any newborn already has his or her dignity, as he or she has a soul." Evidence please! Who says a baby is born with a soul, and how do we detect it or quantify it? Are some people born with more dignity than others? Can we extract it and sell it on eBay?!

"The soul's presence is encompassing; just as one cannot have half a soul, one cannot have only half of one's dignity."

Evidence please! Says who? If you can't detect a soul, how do you know how big it is, or how many there are per person? Or whether some people have 'em and some don't?! More to the point, have you got a source for this claim! Who are you reporting?!

"The intrinsically-defined concept of dignity is therefore an infinite concept, suggesting that the highest worth that manifests in each person is their dignity, and that even an infant has dignity equal to that of an adult."

Evidence please! Why is it "therefore an infinite concept"? Infinite in what way - volume? viscosity? duration? diameter? atomic mass? smell? crumbliness? sociological merit? Where's the support for this conclusion anyway? Why does it suggest anything? Who says an infant has equal, greater, or lesser dignity than an adult! how do you prove that?

Thus, dignity is not a quality of being highly valued, but is intrinsically the highest human value itself.

"Thus"! "Value"? Is a "quality" a "value" then? I'm confused! What do you mean "highest" and how do you establish what makes it higher than other "values"? (It's loaded language, that's what it is). Don't non-humans have dignity then? WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES!? WHO'S EVIDENCE ARE YOU REPORTING!?

This article is bollocks - sort it out! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.113.23.157 (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

I couldn't agree more. And I don't think that the article in its current form can be saved, it has to be started from scratch. By more than one person, preferrably. — Mütze 18:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm, since nobody seems to care about a rewrite, how about a deletion? Or a blanking, then stub? — Mütze 16:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Stubified! Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Look up Kant

The German version quotes Immanuel Kant, and might be a good source, I'll try to summarize.

Every Human has dignity, due to his autonomy. He gains autonomy by being able to recognize and abide to the golden rule. So indeed it's not a property that you acquire from others due to your actions (which I think the author got mixed up with honour and respect), but is intrinsic to being a human being. Whoever takes the burden of writing this article should look up Kants definition more thoroughly, since it is the one on which the Grundgesetz (German constitution) refers to. "Die würde des Menschen ist unantastbar." Artikel 1 Absatz 1

Mbarkhau 20:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

2008-03-19 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Significant additions

I have added significantly to this article and removed a section. First, I will explain why I added, then I will give reasons for the particular additions.

The article prior to this edit was quite sparse as well as highly editorialized. There was no definition given for dignity and much of the article was concerned with how dignity is used in human rights documents in a way that was contradictory. However, since the term dignity has had quite a specific use in discourse and philosophy for many centuries it seems to not do the topic justice for this narrow criticism to be the main focus of the article.

Therefore, I added as follows:

(a) a definition - This definition - "the quality that belongs to a human being by virtue of which the person deserves to be acted towards with humanity" is what I would suppose would be the general consensual understanding of dignity and attempts to encapsulate the meaning of the term as it is used in discourse.

(b) Introduction - Summarizes how the term is generally used. Summarizes the use in philosophy, which the rest of the article elaborates upon.

(b) Pico Della Mirandola - offers a well known and accepted neo-Platonist interpretation of human dignity. This is probably representative of the dominant philosophical world view prior to Kant.

(c) Kant - is the well recognized basis for the modern view on the subject. For Kant, dignity is quite intertwined with reason, morality and autonomy and he is quite explicit on this.

(d) Human rights discourse - I left much of what was previously in the article on the subject, though it could probably be improved a lot. I removed the parts which seemed to express quite a narrow and not very well cited opinion.

I confess that I have yet to cite this article properly. I will do so shortly, but will require a bit more research. I was also going to add a section on Gandhi and moral dignity as he uses the term quite a bit. However, I have not yet found adequate material, but may add this later.

Generally, I would suggest that the additions serve as an appropriate core for the article as this offers a historical treatment covering the main divisions in philosophy that focus on dignity. Perhaps there are more sections that could be added to this.

86.0.124.120 (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)JG

Use of "man"

I should note that when adding to the page I often used the term 'man' in description of certain philosophical concepts in line with the conventional use at the time. I am not sure however what is the general convention at Wikipedia regarding this.

86.0.124.120 (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)JG

Vandalism

To 86.0.124.120: If you persist in vandalizing this article, I will ask the administrators to keep you out of it.

I have remodeled the article to incorporate your contribution. Your contribution follows mine because your contribution:

1. adds no useful information to the article;
2. substantiates some of the information in my contribution;
3. may be only the beginning of a very long list if every sect chooses to offer a sample of its dogma.

Pyrrhon8 (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

I notice that the current page has been re-edited removing quite a helpful definition. Also, there are a number of absurdities in the current article which show an embarassing ignorance of basic intellectual history.

Why would Kant be placed under a section on Dignity and Christianity when he is the major thinker to have provided a specifically non-religious defintion for dignity and human rights? If anything, Kant and Pico Mirandella should be placed under a section of Dignity and Philosophy.

I would hazard a reason as the real reason why Pyrrohn8 does not wish to place a definition of dignity at the top is because s/he is quite adamant about insisting in this entry that dignity in international documents is underfined and is equivalent to 'just because.' However, this is a narrow opinion at best and not accepted as consensus by scholarly opinion. There is, in fact, as the pieces on Kant and Della Mirandola indicate a long tradition of discussions and defining dignity in philosophy that is not based upon theology.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.226.95 (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is an offence against human dignity to vandalize the work of Pyrrhon8. -- Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrrhon8 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, this is not an essay

Pyrrhon8, I do not know if you are actually aware of what the purpose of Wikipedia is, but it is not a vehicle for your personal opinions. If you read the guidance notes on the Wikipedia site, it will expressly state that articles should be written from a neutral perspective and not in an essay-like form. What is this paragraph doing here then?

"Equating Dignity with humanness is meaningless. To say that a person has dignity, that is, that a human is human does not impart any useful information. The statement does not prove anything."

It is a bit preposterous to call Kant a dogmatist since he is probably the philosopher who, more than anyone else, undermined dogmatic thought.

I have no choice but to change back the label that you have given this "Dignity and Dogmatists" to the more sensible label "Dignity and Philosophers." I will also once again replace the definition at the top of the page.

Really, the internet is full of discussion forums that you could join where these insights would be very appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.4.136 (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Leading paragraph

I will provide a leading paragraph as quickly as I am able. Pyrrhon8 (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

First draft of a leading paragraph is now in place. BTW, thank you Bobo192. Pyrrhon8 (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The leading paragraph is perposterous. This is not an essay, Pyrrhon 8. Please remove your ruminations and place them elsewhere. Also, Kant was not a dogmatist nor a religious thinker. You should be embarassed to be showing off your ignorance like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.146.10.31 (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Twas Now. Pyrrhon8 (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Dignity and Dogma

This article once had a section called 'Dignity and Dogma.' I removed the section because its inane gibberish was offensive to dignity and reason. Those who like dogma should take the section and create a new article. Pyrrhon8 (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert War

Should the contribution by Pyrrhon8 be deleted in whole or in part? Why? Should the contribution by Cicero79 (86.??.???.???) be deleted in whole or in part? Why?

heavens! you guys are not treating this article with the dignity it deserves... . at a quick glance, it seems to me that both of these versions have qualities to recommend them (though both could also use some serious copyediting). plus, there is a tremendous amount missing from both versions. just in the last three or four centuries, human dignity has been a major philosophical issue - from classical Liberalism to Marxism to Transcendentalism to to post-modern critiques of colonialism and dehumanization, not to mention technology-driven issues like medical invasiveness, personal privacy, and etc. I like Cicero's attempts at creating structure, and I think the article should try to preserve that, but I'll need to read more carefully to comment on content. I will say, though, that I'm not quite content either with Cicero's proposed definition of dignity (which is too focussed on humans, and bit circular) or with Pyrrhon's non-definitional, use-oriented approach (which is possibly more accurate, but much more confusing). If you want to give a definition for dignity, use something like "Dignity is a term used in moral and ethical discussions to signify that a being has an innate right to respect and ethical treatment, regardless of circumstance." Mostly though, you need to start working together. There does not seem to be a huge difference between the versions of the articles that you're each presenting, and I think it would be fairly easy to find a compromise that you could both live with. let me know if there's anything I can do to help. --Ludwigs2 22:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ludwigs2 for your comment. When I came upon the Dignity article in early September, the article was a wasteland. The years of conflict over definitions had reduced the article to a stub. I inserted my first draft of the article, which was half the length of my current article.

Cicero79 or 86.???.???.??? inserted his claim that dignity has only one definition. He also inserted paragraphs about Pico Della Mirandola and Immanuel Kant.

I was content to have the article divided into my section and Cicero79's section. I thought my section should be first because Cicero79's material has no references; the claim that dignity has just one meaning is not true; the material about Kant is better treated under the Kant article rather than under the Dignity article; the material is all abstraction and sophistry, and so worthless. I was also concerned that Cicero79's definition might set off another conflict over definitions. I thought it would be better to have the conflict after the most enlightening part of the article rather than before that part.

Cicero79 repeatedly rearranged the paragraphs and deleted paragraphs from my section. He undid the reversions by me and other editors. At that point, I decided that my courtesy in allowing Cicero79's unreferenced material to stay should be withdrawn. I deleted Cicero79's section, and so the article is now as I would like it to be.

I am not claiming ownership of the Dignity article. I am objecting only to the deletion of much of my contribution for no good reason. If anyone doubts that anything in my section is a fact, I invite them to consult my references or to test the logic. If anyone is wiser because of Cicero79's contribution, please say so; please explain, if dignity has the one meaning: the quality that belongs to a human being, what is meant by the dignity of plants and the dignity of religion. Pyrrhon8 (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

well, let me say that it's natural for an article to change significantly over time. this division into 'your' section and 'Cicero's' section might work for a little while, but hopefully the two would eventually get blended together into a cohesive whole. that's what makes for a good article. what you hope for is that the different editors will be able to insert different things that will ultimately harmonize.

personally, I don't think it's a bad idea to try to define dignity (as I noted above). Cicero's definition may not work, but what you should do then is say 'this doesn't work, for reason A, and reason B...' and then work with him to try to craft a definition that does work for both of you. certainly a reader is going to expect to see some sort of definition up near the top (they're coming to this page because they want information, after all). how would you modify Cicero's definition to get something cleaner? and don't worry about wars over the definition; I know how to deal with those if it comes to it. let's just try to get something functional, and some identifiable introductory section, and then we can move on to getting your content and cicero's working together in the body. --Ludwigs2 01:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

While the article that has been prepared by Pyrrhon8 has a very good argument and so some worthwhile points, this just does not seem to be the type of content for which Wikipedia is intended. Most of this contribution seems to be advocating Pyrrhon8's personal view of dignity. This leads to a number of quite contentious points asserted as if this were fact. For example:

"Equating dignity with humanness is meaningless. To say that a person has dignity, that is, that a human is human does not impart any useful information."

Or later on....

"It matters neither to those who want to expand human, other animal, or vegetable rights nor to those who want to curtail such rights if dignity is meaningless. Dignity is useful because it has the connotation of goodness. Because of its connotation, dignity is equal to just because as a reason for anything. It is like all the other meaningless, make-believe authorities. It is unassailable and all-purpose. Anyone can use it to support or to condemn any cause or activity."

There is also is no section on Wikipedia on "vegetable rights", so introducing this tidibit of original research is a bit questionable for this article, even though it is quite an interesting idea.

On the other hand, the discussion of dignity within the context of international treaties is very important because this has become one of the main uses of the term.

From my understanding, the purpose of Wikipedia articles is to convey the generally accepted understanding of a certain topic and the broad debates on this. Perhaps then it would be a good idea to continue what has been the structure of the article at some point, which is an introduction of the use of the term of 'dignity' within philosophy and/or political thought as the grounding for how this has been used within international treaties.

I agree that my definition could probably be improved as I wrote this quite quickly. Originally it was only intended to lay the basic framework for further editing. It is true as Pyrrhon8 perceptively notes in the article, that the definition of dignity does tend towards circularity. This does seem to be inherent to the concept, but in my personal opinion this does not render the term meaningless. Rather, the term dignity from my understanding compares the bare fact of existence with an ideal state of being. So for example a dignified person is a person who lives up to some of the ideal qualities that a person could hold, which has generally been associated with moral autonomy in ethical thought. This assumes then that there could be a normative ideal that human beings or say animals both could live up to and also which could serve as standards as to how they should be treated.

Where an empiricism is assumed as a framework (such as by David Hume) for which there is no theoretical space accorded to normative ideals, this sort of line of reasoning may not seem to make sense. However, historically most ethical thought outside of empiricism (particularly Kantian, Platonist and Aristotelian thought) has considered ideals of human behaviour as having an application to reality.

This is just to note that the points of Pyrrhon8 do seem to hold a certain amount of theoretical weight, but also are limited to a certain constrained philosophical perspective. That is not to say that this does not have some validity, but it cannot really be called the general consensus on the meaning of dignity either.Cicero79 (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Cicero79

I agree with you - I'd like to preserve good bits of what Pyrrhon wrote, but put it into a proper structure and NPOV it some. I'm hesitating to get involved in editing it right at the moment (I have a ton of work to do, short term), but I'd suggest you go ahead and start editing it again. hopefully Pyrrhon will work with you this time. --Ludwigs2 19:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of content

Should Pyrrhon8's article on dignity be deleted?

Comment: Pyrrhon, I don't think anyone wants to delete your contributions to the article; we just want to make it more encyclopedic. I'm going to go ahead and do a rewrite combining your and Cicero's contributions. I hope that will satisfy your concerns. --Ludwigs2 03:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC) I've made a first round of revisions - please let me know what you think. more later. --Ludwigs2 04:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I accept that compromise is the best solution in many circumstances.

The problem with trying to reconcile the point of view that 1+1=2 with the point of view that 1+1=3 by saying 1+1 can be both is that the compromise produces nonsense. I would prefer that the article about dignity not have any nonsense.

My contribution is about how dignity has played a role in national and international matters since the early 20th century. The article gives an overview of what happened and offers an explanation of what happened. The article makes the point that what dignity means is irrelevant. The meaning is irrelevant because of the difference between is and ought. There is no logical way to go from an is-statement to an ought-statement about human rights. Dignity will serve any master; it will justify any cause. There is no point in dwelling on definitions because that dwelling will not change what has happened and will not explain what has happened.

If I was interested in prescribing a meaning for dignity, I would agree with Cicero79. I agree with him that dignity should be about a "normative ideal." It should be a quality for which a person should strive. I like Aldergrove's definition of dignity (in footnotes). He seems to see dignity as a metaphorical measure of a person's conduct. The less one's conduct is like a baby's or like a lunatic's, the more dignity one has. I find that definition helpful. That definition makes dignity a useful word. My contribution is not, though, about ideals. It is not about what should be; rather, it is about what has already taken place.

I do not like the new leading paragraph. You want to begin the article with a definition. The idea that something should be precisely defined before it is discussed is a fallacy. The fallacy is identified as Loki's wager. Since the article makes the point that dignity can be defined in all kinds of ways, it does not make good sense to try to limit its meaning in the leading paragraph.

You say "Dignity is a term used in moral and ethical discussions to signify that a being has an innate right to respect and ethical treatment, regardless of circumstance." Sometimes, dignity is used in this way. Sometimes, dignity is used in other ways. As you indicate, dignity can be used in all sorts of contexts with all sorts of meanings. Sometimes, dignity can be meaningless. It is not clear why you chose to mention the few meanings that you offer in your first paragraph.

The first paragraph now is all obfuscation. What do you mean by "baser passions"? (The link to passions is to an American soap opera.) What scheme of passions are you advocating? Is it not possible to use dignity to criticize someone who has not given in to a baser passion? Why? You say dignity is "closely related" to other abstractions. What do you mean by "closely related"? How is the dignity of a daffodil related to autonomy? How is the dignity of a virus related to human rights? You mention "enlightened reason." How is unenlightened reason different from enlightened reason?

You say dignity has a "strong emotional resonance." What do you mean by that? Why are you using so many weasel words? How is anybody to understand what you are saying if it is all metaphor, abstraction, and sophistry? What is the point of dwelling on obscure, pointless definitions? What are you trying to prove?

Please explain why you put the introductory paragraphs in the middle of the article.

I think it is a good idea to discuss major changes to an article on its talk page BEFORE making the changes. Pyrrhon8 (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Pyrrhon - first, let me say that I've only begun revisions on this article. I'm a bit busy right now, but I'll be doing more on it over the coming week. please feel free to improve it yourself in the meantime, though.

that being said, you have to recognize that the term 'Dignity' has a reasonably long philosophical history, and goes well beyond the use in modern politics. if you just want to write about the modern political use, that's either a different article or a section of this article; you can't reduce dignity as a whole to that usage. I see two main problems with the text you've written that need to be addressed:

1. it's clear (as you say above) that you're trying to make the point that Dignity has no real meaning as a term. this is synthesis: wikipedia isn't the right place to make original points like that. there are plenty of sources which hold that dignity is a meaningful and valid concept (and indeed, almost everyone you meet would consider it so) - that fact that these sources may disagree on a precise definition, or that a few reliable sources give the opinion that there is no real definition, is not grounds for us to conclude definitively that the term has no meaning. all we can do is point out how the term has been used in various contexts and leave readers to make up their own minds.
2. your original version lacked any effective structure. structure in articles helps readers find the things they are interested in quickly and easily, and helps expand the article (because editors are more likely to work on a small section of an article than read through the entire thing). just at a glance, I could break your section down into the sections 'historical use', 'dignity in modern politics', 'dignity in modern medicine', which would help focus the ideas. now, a conventional structure for an article is to have a lead section of 2-4 paragraphs which acts as an overview, an introductory section, and then several sections on specific topics. I placed your content in the introductory section because it needs to be broken down into separate sections - really, it was a placeholder for your material.

with respect to the opening paragraph and the definition... first, you got Loki's wager backwards (that was an object lesson in confusing things that are otherwise clear, not one about making distinctions where none really exist. for example, I'd have solved Loki's wager by compromising and taking only half of his head, which clearly involves no neck at all). the fact is, you have to try to define something if you're going to write an article about it, even if it doesn't really exist. look at Invisible Pink Unicorn, for instance. if you then want to go and say (through reliable sources) that it doesn't really exist, that's ok, but you have to say what it is that doesn't really exist first, otherwise you're just going to confuse everyone and their grandmother. I'm open to revisions of what's there, of course, but I think that the definition I gave pretty fairly captures what people think they are talking about when they use the word dignity. no? --Ludwigs2 01:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are dead set on providing the full history of dignity, you have my commendation Ludwigs2. I assume you will want to become familiar with the literature on the subject, to collect some quotations, and then to write the piece. If the piece that you write is short, it could be merged with the existing article. If the piece is long, it can stand as a separate article or as several articles. Since it could be some time until you have written your piece or pieces, I suggest the article be reverted to my last version for the time being. As it is, the random assortment of definitions that are without references and replete with weasel words is not a compliment to anyone's effort. Please revert the article to my last version. I will revise the final paragraphs in hopes of making the article easier to understand. Then I will await your magnum opus. Pyrrhon8 (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

well, that wouldn't be wise, because your version of the article is far more likely to get deleted than even this stubby thing that we have now. why don't you try to improve this, rather than insisting on a revert? --Ludwigs2 06:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in revising the article in its present deplorable condition. I happened upon your article: Passions (philosophy). Your contribution there is much like your contribution here. Both contributions lack references and use weasel-words. Do you not agree with Wikipedia's directions for a good article? Do you not like good articles? Pyrrhon8 (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Article is rubbish

This article is utter rubbish as it stands. It reads like somebody is trying to fit their first-year undergraduate essay into a Wikipedia article. I am actually surprised that this is acceptable given Wikipedia's standards. I have tried to change this, but a clever user called Pyrrhon8 keeps reverting it back to the article at its current abysmal level. What are you meant to do within Wikipedia if someone treats an article as their own personal fortress? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.226.95 (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen

Ladies and gentlemen, Cicero79 is much too generous. He is too lavish with his praise. I am but a humble candle in a vast, dark universe. My weak flame would be nothing were it not for you: the other candles of Wikipedia. Thank you! Together, we have said, "Let there be light"; and here it is. Together, we have created something good--something that will keep the shadows at bay a while longer--something that is worth defending to the last candle. Let it be so! Pyrrhon8 (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Summary to 30 March 2009

In November 2008, "Dignity" became a stable article. Well-supported by the progressive Wikipedia community, the article endured past mid-February 2009. On 1 March 2009, Belasted nominated the article for deletion. Prior to the nomination, Belasted had not discussed the article on its talk-page. Belasted had not contributed to the article. After the nomination, Belasted did not notify me (the article's most significant contributor). MBisanz, an administrator, decided to keep the article, and to redirect 'Human dignity' to 'Dignity'. On 5 March 2009, immediately before MBisanz posted his decision, Ludwigs2 mashed 'Human dignity' into 'Dignity' to produce the current version. In November 2008, Ludwigs2 tried to reduce 'Dignity' to a similar mishmash of fact and nonsense. Ludwigs2 was not able to defend his mishmash because he was blocked for disruptive editing. IMHO, the version by Ludwigs2 needs improvement because of its weasel-words , misinformation, omitted information, and unsourced information. IMHO, the current article has too many flaws, and needs to be rewritten. I tried to replace the current article with a re-edited version on 17 March 2009. Belasted promptly reverted my version. Belasted gave no reason for the reversion. I welcome your comments. Pyrrhon8 (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment 1: please discuss the article, not the editors. If you have a problem with the current content, we can discuss that. if you have a problem with me, I don't care. sorry.

Comment 2: the (almost unanimous) conclusion of the AfD for this article was to merge the two articles together. that's difficult to argue with.

Comment 3: the version you're defending was in fact a POV-fork of the original Human Dignity article. It was clearly designed to make a point about the emptiness of the concept of dignity in politics. while I don't particularly agree or disagree with that conclusion (I could make an argument either way, myself), it is not a conclusion that has been determined by reliable secondary sources.

I'm not going to defend this article as the best written thing ever to come down the pike - it still needs a lot of work, and I've been busy. If you want to help improve it, please go ahead, but please don't keep pushing for a version that was rejected by a good number of disinterested editors, and please try to make a balanced presentation that transcends your personal understanding of the issues. --Ludwigs2 19:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

revert under the cover of a revision?

Pyrrhon, please don't do that. it's not like I'm not going to see that you reverted my edits. the version you keep trying to press is no where near as developed as what's currently here - if you want to make changes, please discuss them so we can come to some sort of compromise. constantly reasserting your preferred version is a bit rude. --Ludwigs2 03:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Usage

I don't really understand the usage of dignity here. The OED has as its main entries:

1. The quality of being worthy or honourable; worthiness, worth, nobleness, excellence
2. Honourable or high estate, position, or estimation; honour; degree of estimation, rank.
3. An honourable office, rank, or title; a high official or titular position.
4. Nobility or befitting elevation of aspect, manner, or style; becoming or fit stateliness, gravity.

The content here seems to say nothing of this and perhaps belongs under another heading such as Human rights. Does the issue arise from the usage of a similar word in a Continental language or what? Colonel Warden (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the history, it seems this page was a stub article on the topic you suggest from sometime in 2003 till last august, when Pyrrhon replaced it with (what was generally considered to be) a personal essay on the vacuity of the concept of dignity in the political sphere. there was also a 'Human Dignity' article from about 2005, which discussed the place of human dignity as a concept in politics and philosophy. the Dignity article got nominated for deletion, and the result was to merge Dignity and Human Dignity together, which I did a few weeks ago. somewhere in the process the original stub version of Dignity got lost entirely. I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing, though. the conventional usage of dignity is more a case for wiktionary; in scholarly works dignity is almost always used in the specific context of social or political issues (not even psychologists talk much about personal dignity, and the other elements of the dictionary description are proper nouns). it might be useful to add a wiktionary link in a 'for information about' type header. or maybe the whole article should be moved back over to 'Human Dignity' and the stub version of 'Dignity' from last august should be reinstated? --Ludwigs2 15:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

forgot - here's a link to the version of this page from last July. --Ludwigs2 15:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

ColonelWarden, the reason people cannot understand how dignity is being used today is that dignity--as the article reveals--is an amorphous term. It is easy to use the term to bewilder. The term lends itself to sophistry and bombast. The definitions in the OED are insufficient to explain all the ways in which dignity is used.

As Ludwigs2 notes, the appropriate place to discuss definitions is Wiktionary. I went to Wiktionary to provide more definitions. I explained that the cryptic definitions of the dictionaries inhibited our understanding of what people are saying. The administrators at Wiktionary told me that they would not permit any addition to the traditional definitions. Accordingly, if someone wants some understanding of how dignity is being used today, he has to come here. I mention some of the ways in which dignity is used in my version of the introduction (removed by Ludwigs2).

I did not spend months reading everything I could find about dignity, and then choose to include here only those references that supported what has been called a POV-push. I have included here everything I have found. I have been trying to include a bit on religion and dignity but Ludwigs2 keeps deleting it. I would like to include a paragraph about David Hume but Ludwigs2 keeps deleting it. (See the new section below or see one of my versions of the article under History.)

The core of dignity is quiddity. In other words, something has the quality of being what it is. Accordingly, everything has dignity: beings, viruses, objects, ideas. Dignity is more than quiddity because of the idea that something which has dignity is deserving of respect. The idea that everything deserves respect makes dignity useful as an authority. As Aldergrove notes, dignity is as good as 'just because' as a reason for whatever one wants to say or do. PYRRHON  talk   15:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Pyrrhon, you misunderstand why I reverted your edit. I don't object to what you wrote per se, but you basically deleted two full paragraphs and replaced them with 'some people say this, some people say that...' [1]. what you wrote in the lead just isn't encyclopedic. further, the bit on religion you wrote is weasel worded, over-simplified synthesis. in no way does a quote like ""dignity of the human person is rooted in his or her creation in the image and likeness of God."" (Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church) support the assertion that "Some sects hold that a being has dignity if the being resembles the kind of god that looks like a person." For one, no Catholic scholar would ever equate 'the image and likeness of God' with 'the literal physical form of God' (too many centuries of children asking whether God has to pee has rendered that question moot). even fundamentalist Christians don't go that far, for the most part, because the assertion is just to embarrassing to maintain. for another, the Catholic church does not translate to 'some sects'. Either cite the catholic church specifically (which I will immediately revert, because Catholics don't really believe that) or give some citations which show that it's a more general belief in Christianity.

The problem here is summed up nicely in your second paragraph, above. you're trying to redefine dignity to match your (well-researched) understanding of the term. that's certainly a noble cause, but it's almost the definition of original research. You have a fondness for Aldergrove (who strikes me as having a cynical perspective on dignity, though I may be misreading him) because Aldergrove resonates with your own beliefs. but that's backwards for wikipedia. my advice to you is to let Aldergrove make his own points; don't keep trying to use him to make your points.

P.s. re Quiddity: interesting perspective, and possibly valid, but not something that we can assert as an established fact. plus, many scholars would disagree with the broad, universal, essentialism implicit in it (Existentialists, Pragmatists, and Buddhists, for instance, would probably argue the opposite - that true dignity can only be found by disposing of the notion of an essential self - and many Christian scholars would argue that dignity only applies to beings that have spirits or souls (which in some sects excludes animals, in most excludes plants and fish, and in all excludes rocks). --Ludwigs2 16:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Improving this article

I suggest:

1) the paragraph about David Hume and the Is-ought problem should be reinstated in the section entitled Philosophy: {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) That paragraph is the core of the article because that paragraph explains the absurdity of using dignity or any other abstraction as a reason for anything. That paragraph explains why we often see dignity in the company of perversity and paradox.

2) the section entitled Religion should be reinstated: {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) Those who invoke dignity often say that their ideas about dignity arise out of their religion. (See photo above.) I see no good reason for Ludwigs2 to censor this section.

3) the introductory paragraphs (courtesy of Ludwigs2) should be improved or eliminated. An introduction should summarize the article. This introduction does not summarize the article. To summarize the article is difficult because the concept of dignity is amorphous. Generalizing about dignity produces misinformation. Dignity is not a term limited to moral, ethical, or political discussions. Anybody can use dignity for all sorts of reasons. It is false to say dignity is about beings. Writers talk about the dignity of the liberal arts, the dignity of work, and the dignity of science to name but a few subjects. It is false to say dignity is generally proscriptive and cautionary. Ludwigs2 provides no evidence to support his claims. The claim without explanation that dignity is “closely related” to other words tells us nothing useful. The introduction by Ludwigs2 lacks the verifiable, properly referenced, relevant information that Wikipedia recommends. PYRRHON  talk   15:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The missing paragraphs on Hume and religion read as follows:

Aldergrove observed that dignity, regardless of its meaning, cannot justify the claims that commentators attach to it. Aldergrove says those claims are precluded by the observation of Scottish philosopher David Hume. Hume noted that an is-statement does not give rise logically to just one ought-statement. Aldergrove said thus we cannot go logically from “we are human” to some therefore about what we ought to do or believe.

this is a passage about Aldergrove (who's already over-represented in the article), not Hume. if you want to cite Hume, cite Hume.

Some sects hold that a being has dignity if the being resembles the kind of god that looks like a person. For example, the Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church insists the "dignity of the human person is rooted in his or her creation in the image and likeness of God." "All human beings," says the Church, "in as much as they are created in the image of God, have the dignity of a person." The catechism says, "The right to the exercise of freedom belongs to everyone because it is inseparable from his or her dignity as a human person." PYRRHON  talk   15:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

see what I wrote in the section above. this bit is just unsupportable. --Ludwigs2 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A few suggested changes for philosophy section

The main body of the Dignity article begins rather abruptly, i.e., "A philosopher, Pico De Mirandello...". Firstly, this sentence and the first sentence of the next paragraphs are structured quite awkwardly.

Secondly, shouldn´t the section on philosophy begin with a paragraph, or at least a sentence or two, giving a general overview on the scope of the philosophical discussion on the topic and on the role this has within philosophy, (of which substantial things can be said, especially in relation to ethics).

Thirdly, the discussion of the philosophers are not very expository or explanatory, but merely state what the philosophers "said". This does very little to elucidate the topic or deepen understanding for the reader, which is after all the function of philosophy.

Fourthly, there is one paragraph given for Pico, one for Kant and then two for a philosopher, Aldergrove, who is not well known, does not generally have a Wikipedia page and seems to virtually not exist on a google search. The other philosophers mentioned are also not well known. Perhaps this section should be better structured to reflect the mainstream of philosophical thought (although, granted, the section on Aldergrove refers to Hume, who is most certainly mainstream).

Fifthly, perhaps there are other figures who should be mentioned in this section. In particular, Gandhi comes to mind for which the idea of diginity as upholding moral worth was an essential concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.247.161 (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For the purpose of secularity

While some may view this as nit-picking, I think the first sentence or two are quite one-sided (don't know about the rest of it). Regardless of what I think of as true, a bit of neutral wording is in order. 'God-given'? In the spirit of Wikipedia's neutrality and hence secularism, I'll change this to something along the lines of innate, or natural (since that's essentially what it means to those invested in a God, or Gods). If there's a problem with my grammar or wording, don't just delete it, fix it. If you do delete it, I'd like an explanation (maybe it is supposed to be indicative of its origins in the Enlightenment). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.148.9 (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this was fixed already, but just as an FYI, I chose 'God-given' because that was the common enlightenment era understanding of the idea. but you're right, it was unnecessary. --Ludwigs2 23:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

cleanup reversion?

Pyrrhon - I'm not sure why you reverted that. my edit was intended to improve prose and flow as well as expand some of the ideas out, not to make any serious content changes. can you tell me why you reverted it? am I missing something? --Ludwigs2 23:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to play games with you. Go play on Conservapedia! PYRRHON  talk   05:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A third opinion has been requested for this article. For editors giving a third opinion, the disputed versions can be seen in this diff. --Ludwigs2 05:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

After carefully looking at the differences between the disputed versions, I feel that while both versions of the articles have advantages, the version that was reverted was an attempt to make the article flow better. I find it a more understandable article. I would like to remind both authors however to Assume Good Faith. I do prefer the original version after line twenty by Prrhon. I feel like the changes should probably be kept, and changes should be made to that version. (I can understand it a bit better than the version that was reverted to) Both of you should feel free to leave any comments on my talk page. Additionally, I have added this page to my watchlist. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. Prrhon? --Ludwigs2 14:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

My comments on the Third Opinion by NativeForeigner are available here. The comments are in a great block of text. There is no help for that. PYRRHON  talk   17:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

reverted last changes

I'm sorry, Pyrrhon, but you can not revert the page to your preferred version (of over 6 months ago) without discussion on the talk page. that's simply not acceptable. --Ludwigs2 18:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted back to the 30-recommended version. hopefully we can discuss any further changes that you'd like in the article before any further reverts. --Ludwigs2 22:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected this page before blocks need to be handed out here. This edit warring has carried on long enough, and that's what it is an edit war. Each person constantly reverting the other with no sensible discussion between you just sniping at each other. Discuss the issues or it's possible blocks may end up being involved for disruptive editing, or article bans may need to be considered. Please discuss in a civilised manner, don't discuss each other discuss the article and its content. Canterbury Tail talk 13:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, that's helpful. I'd like to make one request in the interest of fairness. I think the section about Aldergrove deleted by an IP editor here should be restored to the protected article pending further discussion. Pyrrhon has made decent arguments for this inclusion in the past, I'm not convinced that Aldergrove is as non-notable as the IP says, and I don't want to add any fuel to the fire by excluding a reference that Pyrrhon clearly feels is important. Do i need to make a formal {{editprotected}} request, or will this do? --Ludwigs2 17:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection is not an endorsement of the version. However if all parties on this talk page agree for it to go in, then I shall edit it to do so. Canterbury Tail talk 20:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

ok. let's see what others have to say. --Ludwigs2 20:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is Aldergrove?

The article seems to give a certain heavy weight to the views of Aldergrove within the introduction. This seems slightly absurd given that Aldergrove is hardly a well-known think. I have attempted to rectify this a few times. But somebody seems to be launching a pyrrhic war to have their own particular version of the article enshrined (along with the narrow views they support). Perhaps there is a way to fix this, so that the article is not primarily seen to support the narrow viewpoint of one particular activist member of the Wikipedia community.