I'm not the only one to think so. The very first Article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations says, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."
The Declaration talks about human dignity, but it never defines what it really is.
We can say that it is about inherent worthiness of each person.
What does that mean? It surely shouldn't mean that an idiot deserves less respect than other people.
What is the respect that an idiot deserves? The concept of human dignity says that idiocy should not make a difference in how that person is treated.
Suppose that there is a person who is easily offended. Won't it be more difficult for her/him to protect her/his dignity than for others who are less easily offended? If so, it suggests that we are not uniform in terms of dignity.
You are talking about dignity in a sense slightly different from that in the Universal Declaration. The Declaration is more about how to set up social institutions so that human dignity could be systematically protected. Examples would be intolerance of torture, slavery and the like.
Dignity can be taken away by personal injuries and that is where our focus has shifted, I see. The shift probably suggests that we---you and I---do not see with our own eyes any systematic damage done to human dignity on a daily basis.
Are you sure that you do not witness dignity challenged in our everyday lives? It is possible that such instances are so prevalent that we have become blind to them. I think the kinds of discrimination touched upon by Article 2 of the Declaration happens everyday, everywhere.
That article is rather lengthy. "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."
Do you remember talking about forgiving---that the burden of coming to terms with what happened is on the victims? I'm afraid the same principle applies here.
That is...?
When someone does or says something that deprives of your dignity, you cannot obviously go back in time and undo the doing or the saying. Your dignity is taken away for the moment.
And, you are saying that the best is to forget about it?
We can restore our dignity by responding or reacting to the incident in certain ways. To act as if it were nothing may be indeed the best way in some cases.
We should not act as if the offense was effective. That is, we should not take their bait or play their game. Is this what you have in mind?
Yes. You may reveal that you have noticed the offensive action or remark, but never show explicit anger or shock caused by it.
That will be easier for a verbal one than for a physical one...
Certainly. It is again up to the offended whether something can be done to the damage. It is possible to protect our dignity by firmly believing that others cannot possibly do something like that to us, in other words, by staying calm.
It will be best if the "aggressor" admits or realizes that they have not succeeded in humiliating. Does it come so easily?
Most likely, it will take a several rounds or more. It is possible that it never happens. But compared to preserving one's dignity, establishing and maintaining trust may be more difficult.
I remember that you run away whenever someone indicates that s/he does not trust you.
I don't actually run away! I just feel like it.
You also said that trusting a stranger, or acting as if you did, is against what biology dictates us to do, and that is what civilization consists of: defiance of biology.
The trust issue is more difficult on that account than the dignity issue. After all, our dignity is about how we think about ourselves.
Can we say that safeguarding dignity is part of our biological mechanism to survive?
I think so. On the other hand, the most primitive survival instinct says it is best not to place trust in someone casually. Trust is more about how we evaluate other people; it depends much more on others' behavior than in dignity.
Didn't you say human relationships are based on reciprocity? If so, you do have control.
The reciprocity principle works in many cases, but not in all. Trusting others would not make them trustworthy, at least, overnight. I can think of many complicated examples.
For example?
A person may be very nice to you, but nasty to others. Should you trust that person?
I've seen such relationships. Some couples are like that; they are only nice to each other.
You have stepped into yet another territory. Even devils become angelic when in love.
Doesn't that suggest that we should all be in love with each other?
Fortunately, we can't be forced to be in love with someone. Anyway, you implied that closeness in relationships brings trust. I think you have mistaken predictability as trust.
Predictability comes from observed consistency of past events, and so does trust. However, you can also be untrustworthy and consistently so. I know that predictability and trust are not the same.
When we are close to someone, you have more opportunities to observe that person and s/he becomes more predictable than others. Closeness also means that you are more likely to say to each other what you would not to people who are less close.
And that includes all the bad things about each other, right?
Yes, I knew I could trust you!
Let's say you have become predictable.
Closeness does not necessary mean belittling each other, but the possibility of exposing dark emotions and thoughts is certainly larger.
The dark emotions and thoughts could be about your partner in the relationship, but also about yourself and everything else in the world.
The problem is that it is difficult to maintain dignity when you let out your fear, anger, jealousy in unedited forms.
Proximity is a difficult ground for dignity, then.
How can you have trust, if dignity is damaged, now and then? That means the sources of comfort can be self-destructive by their very nature. But we all need our own coterie, a group of people who, we think, understand us well.
I knew it! It's treacherous---trust, dignity and proximity.
Posts
