On Reading "The Studpidity of Dignity"

Steven Pinker has an article titled "The Stupidity of Dignity" in The New Republic (May 28, 2008). It is a critical assessment of the President's Council on Bioethics and its new publication: Human Dignity and Bioethics:Essays Commissioned by the President's Council on Bioethics. That Council seems to reflect the views of President Bush's more conservative supporters, and it seems to have done considerable harm in slowing research involving stem cells. Pinker's article is well worth reading.

The concept of "dignity" does seem worthy of some thought. In some uses it would appear to be a universal term, as when one suggests that "dignity should be attributed to all people". In other cases, it would seem to be (as Pinker emphasizes) a superficial characteristic put on of off as the circumstances dictate (e.g. comport yourself with dignity). We sometimes seem to confuse dignity with pompous. I would suggest that a great comedian, by the very act of behaving in an undignified manner, accentuates his dignity as a human being by contributing to the happiness of others. I believe it was Samuel Johnson who said, "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". Words mean what we intend them to mean and what we understand them to mean.

Still, I think there is a fundamental value to the life of every person which makes that person worthy of concern and worthy of being treated with kindness and respect. If that fundamental value is not to be termed "human dignity", what then should it be called?

Don't get me wrong. Pinker, and expert on language, criticizes the Council for their suggestion that "dignity" as a basis for bioethics. Both the Council members and Pinker know more about the philosophical basis of ethics than I ever will. So, while I am generally concerned about the negative impact that the Council has had, I don't have the expertise to comment well on their arguments.

I tend these days to feel that there probably is a neurobiological basis of morality. If that is true, then moral judgments are likely to be to a degree irrational. Bringing philosophy to bear on ethics, and thus bringing the mind to bear on making moral judgments more rational would seem to be useful. My mind tells me that each individual is a superb creation worthy of respect as such. My brain tells me that other people are much like myself. My mind tells me that if I want the respect of others, then I ought to accord respect to others. The dictionary's first definition of dignity is:

The quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect.

With that definition, perhaps "dignity" is a useful basis for the development of an ethical theory. I find it very hard to believe that that definition would lead by any satisfying chain of reasoning to corollaries such as would be required for the prohibition of stem cell research or restrictions on choice in reproductive biology.