"Macklin goes on to compare the Council's allegedly indistinct use of dignity with the more precise meaning that the concept is given in Genetics and Human Behavior: the Ethical Context, a report published in 2002 by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in the United Kingdom.3 In that report, she notes, dignity refers to the idea that "one is a person whose actions, thoughts and concerns are worthy of intrinsic respect because they have been chosen, organized and guided in a way that makes sense from a distinctly individual point of view."4 Macklin's favorable comparison of this sense of dignity with the Council's "hopelessly vague" usage of the concept is but a Trojan horse for the central contention of her critique: namely, that dignity is a poor, blurred substitute for what she describes as the principle of medical ethics, respect for persons -or, as she later says, respect for autonomy. Even in the Nuffield report, she argues, the truth of the matter emerges: dignity adds nothing to, and in fact casts a confusing haze over, the ideas clearly conveyed by the principle of respect for autonomy.5"http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/pcbe/reports/human_dignity/chapter2.html
I want to see if they can make me start growing again and enhance my cranial capabilities. That should be a sure way to death, make them all happy. If you could volunteer to be a subject, would you? Is your life worth living or are you causing destruction?
To further the discussion, what do you think is ethical as far as medical experiments go? I think they should be open about it and employ individuals that have no other place in society. I can't get a job, so I might as well do something. My life is pretty shitty. It isn't worth a fight. However, I don't need multiple parties creating an invalid subject. Ethics are only important when nurturing a society for protection. I mean, you don't want all these people running around doing uncontrolled experiments. What would happen if they caused me to develop or was infected with prions (like something like it) and I unknowingly donated blood? Then everyone is infected with some mysterious disase. We have ethics to prevent that. You cannot trust a single perception, and we cannot trust one's hunches as one might be trying something clever against us.
"The value of the human soul is a dollar earned in hell. I don't understand the need for dignity anymore. We all know that people live lives independent from us and that we don't really want to control them or their ideology because it won't serve our lives. The fact that Tammy is cheating on her husband does not make Sally a better wife. It's an event that happened. It's either logical to someone's life or it isn't, the latter causing the person to exhibit akrasia. And they'll figure it out themselves if it hurts them. Then they'll have reason instead of a shallow concept of self-worth based on invisible principles most likely pleasing to another."
"That's an intelligent statement but society is always fighting between culture and future and the individual. I don't have any dignity. It makes me a target because whatever they're doing is somehow justified by an individual "good" that reflecting some ideal or moral that doesn't exist. A prime example of this would be sitting in a bar and trying not to focus on objects because my awareness does that. People assumed that I was sending messages because they had dignity above me, and I was hitting on the Prime Minister of Russia (because that would be something that a sane person would do--the FSB should have called an ambulance but they want to kill me for any reason or hurt me because they hurt). IN the end, it's never about dignity. It's about self-superiority and limited perspective. I assume that long ago the churches that you mentioned tried to protect the people. Don't be a raving whore, have some dignity. What would happen if you were a raving whore? You'd get STDs and be shunned. But in the end the establishments were corrupted and all arguments turned in on themselves."
kaela creighton
I think "dignity" in this context is the ambiguity of the researcher in relation to the subject. Not personal dignity as you are writing about. Dignity is discussed in the Belmont report only in vague uncertain terms. That could be an interesting question to ask a subject though. "Did the research participants treat you with dignity?"
The value of the human soul is a dollar earned in hell. I don't understand the need for dignity anymore. We all know that people live lives independent from us and that we don't really want to control them or their ideology because it won't serve our lives. The fact that Tammy is cheating on her husband does not make Sally a better wife. It's an event that happened. It's either logical to someone's life or it isn't, the latter causing the person to exhibit akrasia. And they'll figure it out themselves if it hurts them. Then they'll have reason instead of a shallow concept of self-worth based on invisible principles most likely pleasing to another.
That's an intelligent statement but society is always fighting between culture and future and the individual. I don't have any dignity. It makes me a target because whatever they're doing is somehow justified by an individual "good" that reflecting some ideal or moral that doesn't exist. A prime example of this would be sitting in a bar and trying not to focus on objects because my awareness does that. People assumed that I was sending messages because they had dignity above me, and I was hitting on the Prime Minister of Russia (because that would be something that a sane person would do--the FSB should have called an ambulance but they want to kill me for any reason or hurt me because they hurt). IN the end, it's never about dignity. It's about self-superiority and limited perspective. I assume that long ago the churches that you mentioned tried to protect the people. Don't be a raving whore, have some dignity. What would happen if you were a raving whore? You'd get STDs and be shunned. But in the end the establishments were corrupted and all arguments turned in on themselves.
"You cannot avoid the interplay of politics within an orthodox religion. This power struggle permeates the training, educating and disciplining of the orthodox community. Because of this pressure, the leaders of such a community inevitably must face the ultimate internal question: to succumb to complete opportunism as the price of maintaining their rule, or risk sacrificing themselves for the sake of the orthodox ethic."
Frank Herbert
Dignity is a term used in moral, ethical, and political discussions to signify that a being has an innate right to respect and ethical treatment. It is an extension of Enlightenment-era beliefs that individuals have inherent, inviolable rights, and it is thus closely related to concepts like virtue, respect, self-respect, autonomy, human rights, and enlightened reason. Dignity is a precondition of freedom. Dignity is generally proscriptive and cautionary: in politics it is usually synonymous to 'human dignity', and is used to critique the treatment of oppressed and vulnerable groups and peoples, though in some case has been extended to apply to cultures and sub-cultures, religious beliefs and ideals, animals used for food or research, and even plants. In more colloquial settings it is used to suggest that someone is not receiving a proper degree of respect, or even that they are failing to treat themselves with proper self-respect.
The word "dignity" was first used in the Latin language (as dignitas, dignitatis [3rd decl.]) before the Renaissance, then later by the French, and finally the English language.[1] While dignity is a term with a long philosophical history, it is rarely defined outright in political, legal, and scientific discussions. International proclamations have thus far left dignity undefined,[2][3] and scientific commentators, such as those arguing against genetic research and algeny, cite dignity as a reason but are ambiguous about its application.[4]
Comments
"That's an intelligent statement but society is always fighting between culture and future and the individual. I don't have any dignity. It makes me a target because whatever they're doing is somehow justified by an individual "good" that reflecting some ideal or moral that doesn't exist. A prime example of this would be sitting in a bar and trying not to focus on objects because my awareness does that. People assumed that I was sending messages because they had dignity above me, and I was hitting on the Prime Minister of Russia (because that would be something that a sane person would do--the FSB should have called an ambulance but they want to kill me for any reason or hurt me because they hurt). IN the end, it's never about dignity. It's about self-superiority and limited perspective. I assume that long ago the churches that you mentioned tried to protect the people. Don't be a raving whore, have some dignity. What would happen if you were a raving whore? You'd get STDs and be shunned. But in the end the establishments were corrupted and all arguments turned in on themselves."
kaela creighton
I think "dignity" in this context is the ambiguity of the researcher in relation to the subject. Not personal dignity as you are writing about. Dignity is discussed in the Belmont report only in vague uncertain terms. That could be an interesting question to ask a subject though. "Did the research participants treat you with dignity?"
Frank Herbert
The word "dignity" was first used in the Latin language (as dignitas, dignitatis [3rd decl.]) before the Renaissance, then later by the French, and finally the English language.[1] While dignity is a term with a long philosophical history, it is rarely defined outright in political, legal, and scientific discussions. International proclamations have thus far left dignity undefined,[2][3] and scientific commentators, such as those arguing against genetic research and algeny, cite dignity as a reason but are ambiguous about its application.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignity