Talk:Dignity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
[edit] Definition
I'm not entirely convinced by this definition of dignity. Can't dignity be a quality that isn't bestowed from the outside? Aren't there anarchistic definitions of dignity that specifically preculude "respect" and "esteem" as bestowing "dignity". Does a slave necessarily have less dignity than a king? Or perhaps a slave always has more dignity than a king. I've often thought that dignity had a paradoxical quality in that seeking to be dignified is the least dignified stance possible. I don't dispute the NPOV of this article, I dispute its correctness at all.
On the other hand I think I'd have to be a poet to define dignity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.105.65.5 (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
--
Need the definition of dignity be restricted to only human beings?
--Flame0430 03:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
--
Part of the concept of dignity stems from people whose situation leaves them particularly hurt if it is not naturally bestowed. Think about dignity for one who is dying, one who is gay or lesbian (mentioned as the word is used in an advocacy organization's name), and dignity towards developing youth. It's a moment to engage in an interpersonal transaction to show recognition that one has been there, could have been there, or will eventually be there too.
66.189.247.51 20:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- That's just as vague and weasel wordy as "pride"... that's why this article needs slash and burn and a rewrite includling all the meanings and lashings of logic and sources.
[edit] On raver culture
It's a good thing that ravers value respect, but by exclusively mentioning them, wikipedia makes it look as if they have a sort of 'monoploy' on 'true' respect or something to that effect. However, other creed's also emphasize respect. The muslim, christian, rastafarian and many (most) others claim to value respect as a virtue. So either mention them all or none, I think. Therefore I will remove thius part from the entry.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.151.162.212 (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2004 (UTC)
[edit] On DignityUSA
Just as raver culture, I don't think we should list them, for the same reasons. If we list them, shouldn't we also list similar organizations that try to dignify other minorities? And why should we only list an American organisation if there are also similar organisations in other countries? Edit: I now see the reason DignityUSA was mentioned, because Dignity is part of it´s name. Still, I don´t think they should be on the dignity page, but if a vet disagrees with me, go ahead and undo the change.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.151.162.212 (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Marked for deletion
-
- From Wikipedia:Votes for deletion; (decision was to keep):
WP:WINAD. Angela
-
- Delete, same reason. Maximus Rex 20:32, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Delete, ditto. Fuzheado 23:57, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Give it a few weeks on Cleanup, delete if not improved. Andre Engels 11:39, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. Listing new pages here is a waste of everyone's time. It's developing into an encyclopedia entry. JamesDay 20:03, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. Concepts like respect or diginity are hard to write about but hardly needless for wikipedia.
- Keep. There's much more than what you'd find in a dictionary now. Wiwaxia 04:22, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Delete, ditto WINAD. Daniel Quinlan 08:19, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
- BOTH - keep the article, delete the contents. Dignity shouldn't have to explain itself!
[edit] Respect
Most of this should be in the respect article, if anywhere. --Kapow 03:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This is a sh-tty article, needs to be completely re-done
I'm of half a mind of blanking this page until something more coherent is written. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjwright79 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC).
- Hear hear... bloody meaningless hippy equivocation
-
-
- Agreed, this page is terrible ROxBo 08:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Dignity is the highest value of a man.
I am convinced that the topic of dignity must be written beautifully, as the concept is itself. So I entered the extract from my favorite author S.Soloveychik, the expert in ethics.
During time I am going to add more sense in this article to become a standard article with links etc. So far I read the discussion and realised that people DO want to take everything irrelevant out.
The organizations, which contain a word "dignity" in their name I consider irrelevant because there are lots of companies and organizations, which use words like this and it doesn't mean that they all must be linked.
As we are writing encyclopedia, we must be strict to the point.
I also think that the concept "respect" is irrelevant here because it must be a separate article. It may be added as relevant links though, but I will do that later.
Abuhar Oct, 20, 2006
[edit] The new content from the article by Aubanova
I added the whole article, but I still work on links. I plan to link several words when the links will be proper related to this content. As for citation, I don't know yet what way would be better. Anyone can help? Abuhar 24 Oct.06
[edit] Here is another trial.
Okay, I see that nobody is actually want to discuss anything, but they don't hesitate to clean other people's work severely. Well, it is always easier to destroy than to create something meaningful. Today I reviewed what was left from my first editing and I worked some more on the text to improve and make the idea clearer. It took several hours for me to write few paragraphs, yes, to create something is a hard work. I will continue with the rest next time. Hope people will appreciate, and that increases my dignity! :-) --Abuhar 05:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Disambiguations
I removed the DignityUSA disambiguation link at the top of the article because it didn't seem to be to stand out more than any other article involving the word "dignity", or be likely to be confused with the basic term itself. If someone wishes to create a proper Dignity (disambiguation) article to link to at the top of this one, here are some entries which should probably be included, in the order they appear in an "All pages" query for "Dignit":
- Dignitas
- Dignitas International
- Dignitatis Humanae
- Dignity, Democracy, Motherland
- DignityUSA
- Dignity Battalions
- Dignity (Ar-Namys) Party
- Dignity Village
- Dignity and Shame
- Dignity for Disabled
- The Dignity of Labour
- Dignité (Centrale des Syndicats Libres de Côte d'Ivoire)
Since I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment, I'll leave the actual creation and addition of one-line descriptions for each entry to an interested party. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Putting things in order - "respect" goes to "respect" article.
I made many changes today: moved text on "respect" into corresponding article, so did with links on the concept of "respect." description of DignityUSA added to Dignity-ambiguation.
Well, not much left but it is better a little left than a big wrong impression. Concept of respect can't substitute the concept of dignity. Abuhar 04:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] let's remove the liberal communist propaganda
Dignity is an invention of liberal communist propaganda machine. If you think your dignity has been taken away, it's actually your own fault and you are making pathetic excuses for people not liking you. Get over it losers. Let's change this article to reflect these important points. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.189.49.55 (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC).
-
- Concept of Dignity was existing long time ago, way before communist ideas began to come to people's mind. You need to know history well. Abuhar 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Agreed -- I'm really not very sure how 68.189.49.55 decided that dignity and communism are related. Assuming that 68.189.49.55 is an American . . . he may be surprised to learn that both the United States Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution speak of dignity in their preambles (if not using that exact word).NickdelaG
- Of course, we could all be communists and secretly editing historic documents. Just saying.NickdelaG
- Agreed -- I'm really not very sure how 68.189.49.55 decided that dignity and communism are related. Assuming that 68.189.49.55 is an American . . . he may be surprised to learn that both the United States Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution speak of dignity in their preambles (if not using that exact word).NickdelaG
[edit] Fair Use?
There's an extended quotation (properly cited, obviously a quotation) in the article. I'm not sure if it's fair use or not. Thoughts? NickdelaG
[edit] Ahistorical
It's a bit hard to know where to start with this article, but at a minimum it needs to put the concept in historical perspective. Where is Kant (for example)? This is an encyclopedic topic but I'm afraid that I agree with those who are saying we almost need to statt again. Metamagician3000 01:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Facial expression image removed
Just removed this image from the article; firstly, there's no discussion of facial expressions associated with dignity in the article, and secondly, the caption isn't sourced. (Seems a little vain, too, though I'll assume good faith for now.) Extraordinary Machine 18:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Picture Deleted!
I thought that picture made the article!Mcalwoden 10:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's the face of someone strummin' the banjo whilst sittin' on a hog in the Appalachians.
- regardless of his appearance, he IS making the 'dignity face' which cannot be denied. Holding your head up high and staring off into the distance is dignity incarnate.
-
- funny looking kid ROxBo 08:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This is not an article, it's an essay
The whole start of the article reads like someone's trying to make a case, without defining their terms.
This sort of article is very susceptible to weasel words and loaded language anyway.
(what's a "soul" for example?!)
Articles should objectively report current understanding of a term from as many credible perspectives with as much credible evidence as possible.
"When viewed as an intrinsically defined quality, any newborn already has his or her dignity, as he or she has a soul." Evidence please! Who says a baby is born with a soul, and how do we detect it or quantify it? Are some people born with more dignity than others? Can we extract it and sell it on eBay?!
"The soul's presence is encompassing; just as one cannot have half a soul, one cannot have only half of one's dignity."
Evidence please! Says who? If you can't detect a soul, how do you know how big it is, or how many there are per person? Or whether some people have 'em and some don't?! More to the point, have you got a source for this claim! Who are you reporting?!
"The intrinsically-defined concept of dignity is therefore an infinite concept, suggesting that the highest worth that manifests in each person is their dignity, and that even an infant has dignity equal to that of an adult."
Evidence please! Why is it "therefore an infinite concept"? Infinite in what way - volume? viscosity? duration? diameter? atomic mass? smell? crumbliness? sociological merit? Where's the support for this conclusion anyway? Why does it suggest anything? Who says an infant has equal, greater, or lesser dignity than an adult! how do you prove that?
Thus, dignity is not a quality of being highly valued, but is intrinsically the highest human value itself.
"Thus"! "Value"? Is a "quality" a "value" then? I'm confused! What do you mean "highest" and how do you establish what makes it higher than other "values"? (It's loaded language, that's what it is). Don't non-humans have dignity then? WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES!? WHO'S EVIDENCE ARE YOU REPORTING!?
This article is bollocks - sort it out! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.113.23.157 (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
- I couldn't agree more. And I don't think that the article in its current form can be saved, it has to be started from scratch. By more than one person, preferrably. — Mütze 18:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Umm, since nobody seems to care about a rewrite, how about a deletion? Or a blanking, then stub? — Mütze 16:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Look up Kant
The German version quotes Immanuel Kant, and might be a good source, I'll try to summarize.
Every Human has dignity, due to his autonomy. He gains autonomy by being able to recognize and abide to the golden rule. So indeed it's not a property that you acquire from others due to your actions (which I think the author got mixed up with honour and respect), but is intrinsic to being a human being. Whoever takes the burden of writing this article should look up Kants definition more thoroughly, since it is the one on which the Grundgesetz (German constitution) refers to. "Die würde des Menschen ist unantastbar." Artikel 1 Absatz 1
Mbarkhau 20:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 2008-03-19 Automated pywikipediabot message
--CopyToWiktionaryBot (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
