On Human Dignity

Among the created there are two concepts commonly understood, frequently postulated, but seldom defined: Humanity and Dignity.

Humanity, the collection of those who are classified as homo sapiens, is both a biological term and a philosophical construct. It is a description of the frailties and miasma of animal existence. We move, we eat, we excrete, we reproduce, we die. Perhaps we credit ourselves with cognitive faculties and certain abilities to reason. We experience emotional states that are some hybrid of our experiences, our cognitive constructs and our limbic systems.

We go further, attributing to ourselves a variety of philosophical viewpoints and self definitions. Humanity in that context becomes a statement of ideals regarding values, ethics, and moral conduct…of compassion and charity…of that vaguely understood quality which sets the animal apart from the man.

From this context a number of other constructs are generated, dignity chief among them. It is the philosophical construct of humanity that underlies our judgement of how worthy an individual or our selves may be to be regarded with honour or respect.

In short, from our humanity comes the basis for all sense of dignity, our worthiness of respect, our capacity for compassion, and ultimately a sense of honour.

Yet, what of the Cornilians?

Favoured physically, they stretch the physical similarity with ordinary humans to the very limits. Favoured metaphysically and arcanely, they render any similarity with ordinary humans superficial and nearly irrelevant. The least of them generally excels beyond what ordinary humans achieve. Their lifespans extend over generations of mortal man. Their accumulated experience is a repository that the wisest of ordinary humans could only wish to achieve.

Do Cornilians lose their ability to retain the philosophical construct of humanity as they diverge from the physical definitions of humanity? How long does compassion persist before it becomes condescension? Does honour apply equally to lesser human creatures, or is it best reserved for Cornelian kind?

As the ages pass beyond the range where humans fear a mortal end, how is worthiness defined?

As the years bestow a burden of lived experiences, do Cornilians revert to the animal in seeking sensations, pleasures, amusements, and the most elusive of all, novelty?

Where do Cornilians look to form their constructs of dignity? To base their self worth?

And for those who should be best equipped to warrant the respect and honour of lesser beings, Cornilians that fail of finding their dignity, who will rebuke them?

 

 

 

 

4 comments

  1. I can certainly confirm that many Cornellians do not conform to the psychological conventions that Humanity ascribes to normal people. A fair number of them appear to be high functioning psychopath’s by Humanity’s standards.

  2. Why is it a requirement that a species that to all intents and purposes is superhuman be constrained to the values, judgments and moral imperatives of humans?

    Just because the Cornelians can interbreed with humanity does not make them human. Wolves and dogs can interbreed, but that does not make a wolf into a dog. A Cornelian mindset has proved itself to be a thing separate from the human mindset. Humanity can attempt to domesticate a Cornelian, with significant success in some cases, but it is not the default condition.

    Should it not also be realised that the concepts of human dignity, morals, compassion and charity are all learned conditions, even in humanity. These qualities, so prized it would seem, are an artificial function of humanity’s desire to all live in clumps together, rather than spread themselves out across a landscape in solitary territories. Humanity is not born that way. It teaches its young to be that way, as a convenience to itself, and to try and persuade its young not to kill it and take its nest for themselves once they are grown enough to achieve that. Perhaps it is not the Cornelian’s base condition that is so much the question, as to their nurturing environments. Their teachers. Perhaps those Cornelians brought up among humans fair better in this regard?

    1. Demosthenes asks, “Why is it a requirement that a species that to all intents and purposes is superhuman be constrained to the values, judgments and moral imperatives of humans?”

      Indeed, it is not a requirement at all that Corneilians be held to human standards, and if it were, it is not a requirement likely to be easily enforced by humanity. What may be worth asking is, among these proportedly superior creatures, what values or morals obtain? And the correlate, should not the values of a superior creature reflect that superiority? Should not the moral standards of a superior creature; one who is less impaired by many of the constraints, limitations, and necessities faced by humanity, exceed the values expected of a mere human?

      Demosthenes makes an interesting and telling analogy between Corneilians and wolves. Wolves being alpha predators and social pack animals, the observable behaviors between the two groups may bear some consideration. The inference Demosthenes leaves us with is that of a largely undomesticated and predatory species, which comes near enough the truth seemingly.

      Demosthenes asks, “Should it not also be realised that the concepts of human dignity, morals, compassion and charity are all learned conditions, even in humanity. These qualities, so prized it would seem, are an artificial function of humanity’s desire to all live in clumps together, rather than spread themselves out across a landscape in solitary territories.” He goes on to point out that humanity is not born in such a condition. This “state of nature” argument is familiar to human philosophers, generally as a precursor to the emergence of the “social contract” where the perfect freedom of the tooth and claw natural state is in some part exchanged for mutual protection and the species ability to develop a higher state of civilized achievements. It seems humanity, despite its limitations, has long been practical enough and smart enough to recognize that there is no species advantage or advancement to remaining in the state of nature as a base condition. As a result, higher order concepts have evolved among human society such as the rule of law, democracy, justice, and the balance of individual versus societal rights.

      It is true, as Demosthenes points out, that humanity was not born knowing this; but it is equally true that they seem to have figured it out despite their relative limitations. One wonders whether, when and to what extent Corneilians will demonstrate a superior version of this realization for mere mortals to wonder at?

      Demosthenes asks, “Perhaps it is not the Cornelian’s base condition that is so much the question, as to their nurturing environments. Their teachers. Perhaps those Cornelians brought up among humans fair better in this regard?”

      It may not be possible to accurately or meaningfully survey the childhood experiences of the older Corneilians when so much time has past. However, one may observe that in adulthood their behaviors are often selfish, arbitrary, and lacking in any reference to the superior cognitive skills and experiences one might expect of such beings. These behaviors appear to become entrenched over time and are seemingly mutually and negatively reinforcing. Law, justice, human rights…are reduced to an arbitrary exercise of whim and mood in some cases. Flawed historical models form the basis for creations which have long since passed the point at which corrections should have been instituted. Sentient creations routinely suffer in constructs which have been manufactured for the self gratification of Corneilians, or as a result of Creators’ metaphysical mistakes, without redress.

      If anything, prevailing culture among Corneilians seems to mitigate against evolving beyond the primitive models based on personal privilege that even mere humans have recognized as a thing to attempt to move beyond.

      As to Corneilians raised among humans, perhaps there may be some short term advantage, a nursery perspective that lasts for the few short years of a Corneilian’s first lifetime before they have extended contact with the larger multiverse. But it appears to be the sort of attitude that is easily extinguished either by: the ego inflating nature of Corneilian powers themselves, the first flush of personal hegemony, cultural norming with other Corneilians they encounter, personal survival imperatives vis-a-vis the other Corneilians, or perhaps through simple inattention. It is also possible that older Corneilians may find these human attitude artifacts quaint but undesirable in the younger generation and find ways to extinguish them in training young Corneilians. In any case, my suggestion is that any predisposition to higher principles tends to extinguish after the first 50 years. A return to higher principles for such individuals, after decades or centuries of habitually predatory behavior, would be rare and hard to sustain.

      I think we can see this clearly in some of the more recent crop of Corneilians, who in a few short years, have become seduced by their own right to power. It is a commonplace now for them to look to personal associations and privilege to obtain justice or fair treatment, ignoring the plight of those with no claim to either. It is increasingly the case that their entanglements are based on personal friendships or personal vendetta rather than any overarching notion of what might be right.

      The Corneilians have become bored, self gratifying godlings in a defenseless multiverse, and they seem jealously to be guarding their right to remain so. Ironically, this often appears to be justified by their superiority? Should it not be instead that these superior creatures model a more elevated and responsible system for sentient conduct?

      Might is not Right.

  3. I think that glorifying ‘humanity’ is speciesism and that it really isn’t any better than sexism or racism. Discriminating against any free willed sentient being because of their form is wrong and valorizing some such beings on the basis of their form is just the other side of that same coin.

    Cornelians have power. That doesn’t make us morally better or worse. It does mean that our actions can have disproportionate effects on the less powerful. Every action has consequences. The actions of a Cornelian can have great or horrible consequences both intended and unintended.

    I think that ‘personal survival imperatives’ is a rather glib way of referencing the desperate struggle to protect one’s self, loved ones, and people from older and more powerful adversaries.

    Younger humans can look forward to taking the places of their elders. Younger Cornelians can look forward to their elders living a very long time. Human society changes as younger humans supplant their elders. Cornelian society changes far less frequently. New Creations can provide an outlet for change, but the potential for such creations is not unlimited. Ultimately any major change in the status quo will involve a change in who holds the reigns of power or possibly even a change in the shape of the multiverses. I’m not so optimistic as to believe that will happen without a lot of struggle and the deaths of many humans as well as Cornelians. I’m also not optimistic that anyone who would choose to inflict such death and suffering on the multiverse will actually be better than who we have now.

    I’m willing to collaborate on ventures to mitigate current problems. I’m wary of philosophers who hide behind masks and pseudonyms. You have certainly identified some problems. What do you suggest be done?

Join the Conversation