Using the Logic of Dignity In All That We Do
By Erin Daly
If you ask anyone, anywhere, if they know what “dignity” means, they’ll say yes. If you ask them what it means, they’ll pause for a moment because the meaning, while understood, is not so obvious. But most people soon come to a collection of words and phrases that fall into roughly three categories: self-respect and autonomy; respect for others or some form of the golden rule; and living decently. Some people say it’s easiest to define it by its opposite: vulnerability, humiliation, exploitation, dehumanization. In short, people connect it to the essential qualities of being human.
All over the world, people of all ages and of all different perspectives define dignity in roughly these ways. And in fact, this is exactly how courts define dignity rights as well. They talk about the dignity-based right to freely and fully develop one’s personality, to be treated as a person, to live with dignity, and to have protection if one is in especially vulnerable circumstances.
These conceptions of dignity stem from its recognition in human rights instruments that protect the equal worth of every person. For 80 years, international law has committed to protecting the inherent worth of “all members of the human family.” We see this in binding human rights instruments and in the constitutional law of almost all nations on earth. It is evident in thousands of judicial decisions that protect the dignity right to free expression and free association, to vote and participate in democratic processes, to live in adequate housing and with access to health care and education, to live in community with others, and in a healthy environment. These are all part of what it means to live with dignity. And these are all rights that governments must respect and fulfill.
Dignity is, perhaps paradoxically, both the source of human rights and the purpose of human rights. Because we have dignity, we have (as Hannah Arendt said) the right to have rights. It’s our sense of our own dignity that calls out injustice, that marches in the streets for better treatment, that fuels our demands for respect, and for housing, health care, and all kinds of individual freedoms. It’s also the purpose: we demand human rights in order to live with dignity, to be treated with dignity and to be able to fully experience our own dignity.
Take housing for example. The Project 2029 Housing Policy, “Housing is a Human Right,” doesn’t speak the language of dignity, but it uses dignity logic. “Every person in the U.S. has a right to a roof over their head without discrimination or exception,” it affirms. If this is true, it’s because every person in the U.S. is a human being who has dignity and who therefore has a right to live with dignity which means, in part, having a roof over one’s head and protection from the elements, and from others.
The recognition that the right to housing is rooted in human dignity does not mean that the government must provide a three-bedroom house to every person. But nor does it mean that the government can ignore the human need for shelter and privacy. And it certainly prohibits the government from punishing people who have or are vulnerable to housing insecurity. As the policy says, it means that the government has the “responsibility to implement policies and regulate systems in support of an adequate supply of housing for all.” This would help ensure that every person can live in dignified housing.
We can apply dignity logic across the full range of policies and political positions. Let’s start with the very foundation of democracy: the right to vote. If we were to take dignity seriously, the government would encourage every eligible person’s exercise of their right to vote by removing encumbrances (expanded voting days, expanded mechanisms for voting, same day registration, etc.), and by implementing protections to ensure the integrity of the voting process (from access to polls to protection of the integrity of vote tabulation and certification).
The same logic would apply to other areas of policy. For instance, the logic of dignity would mean that incarceration is used as a last resort only if rehabilitative processes were unavailing. And it would mean even during incarceration, a person’s dignity would be protected even if their liberty was restricted: cells would be clean and sanitary and allow fresh air and natural light; food would be adequate, nutritious, and tasty; opportunities for personal growth would be accessible; grievance procedures would be fair and available; and violence (whether physical, verbal, or sexual) would be deterred and minimized.
Perhaps most importantly, the logic of dignity means that in all circumstances the government treats all people as persons of equal worth. This has both substantive and procedural aspects. As a matter of substance, this means that government agents treat every person with respect as an equal, whether they are distributing benefits or conducting arrests. As a matter of process, it means that every person is entitled to due process before they can be punished. The requirements of due process – from warranted searches and seizures, to a fair and impartial judicial process – are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty such that neither justice nor fairness could exist without them.” The simple reason for our nation’s 250-year old commitment to due process is that it rests on the unyielding commitment to human dignity.
