Denying the dignity of red herrings
While I’m on a Unitarian Universalist kick, here’s a question for my readers. One of the Seven Sacred Verses er, Seven Principles of Unitarian Universalism is to affirm the worth and dignity of every human being. How does that translate into ethical action in terms of the case of Ashley? She is the recently disabled girl made famous by her parent’s decisions to treat her with hormones to prevent growth that outstrips her mental status.
Do me a favor and read the linked article by Peter Singer first before responding, since he specifically talks about what he considers a red herring in the debate–"human dignity":
Here’s where things get philosophically interesting. We are always ready to find dignity in human beings, including those whose mental age will never exceed that of an infant, but we don’t attribute dignity to dogs or cats, though they clearly operate at a more advanced mental level than human infants. Just making that comparison provokes outrage in some quarters. But why should dignity always go together with species membership, no matter what the characteristics of the individual may be?
Upon what do Unitarian Universalists base the claim of "dignity", and first, what is "dignity" and what does it entail?
Image: Socrates preparing to die a "dignified" death via hemlock (is a certain mental capability required for "dignity"?)…