Abstract
The main purpose of this paper is to clarify some senses of dignity that are particularly relevant for the treatment and care of the elderly. I make a distinction between two quite different ideas of dignity, on the one hand the basic kind of dignity possessed by every human being, and on the other hand the dignity which is the result of a person's merits, whether these be inherited or achieved. Common to both these ideas is that having a dignity entails having a set of rights, in the case of basic dignity the set of rights which we call human rights, the rights which the United Nations, among others, has tried to determine. The dignities of merit also provide some rights, although normally rights with limited scope covering, for instance, a professional area. This observation gives my preliminary answer to the fundamental question of what distinguishes dignity from other high values that could be attached to humans. I discuss further a kind of value that might be mistaken for a kind of dignity, viz. what I call “public status.“ This status is to be distinguished from social status (the status of e.g. kings, governors, and officials) that I take to be a proper dignity of merit. The public status is the status gained solely via public perception and not directly via any merits on the part of the dignified. Finally, I turn to the topic of the dignity of the elderly and try to determine whether there is some dignity peculiar to the elderly, and which is over and above the basicMenschenwürde. My two preliminary proposals are the following: the elderly have a dignity of wisdom and they have a highly general dignity of merit, which results from their life-long efforts and achievements, and for this they deserve our gratitude.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bayertz, K.: 1996, ‘Human Dignity: Philosophical Origin and Scientific Erosion of the Idea’, in: K. Bayertz (ed.), Sanctity of Life and Human Dignity. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Beyleveld, D. and R. Brownsword: 2001, Human Dignity in Bioethics and Biolaw. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Birnbacher, D.: 1996, ‘Ambiguities in the Concept of Menschenwürde’, in: K. Bayertz, ibid.
Johnson, P.R.S: 1998, ‘An Analysis of Dignity’, Theoretical Medicine 19, 337-352.
Kant, I.: Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals, translated by L.W. Beck. Upper Saddle River, NJ.: The Library of Liberal Arts, Prentice Hall Inc.
Kemp, P. and J.D. Rendtdorff (eds.): 2000, Basic Ethical Principles in European Bioethics and Biolaw, vol. 1, Autonomy, Dignity, Integrity and Vulnerability. Copenhagen: Centre for Ethics and Law.
Pico della Mirandola, G.: 1950, ‘Oration on the Dignity of Man’, in: E. Cassirer, P.O. Kristeller and J.H. Randall (eds.), The Renaissance Philosophy of Man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Spiegelberg, H.: 1970, ‘Human Dignity: A Challenge to Contemporary Philosophy’, in: R. Gotesky and E. Laszlo (eds.), Human Dignity: This Century and the Next. New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, pp. 39-64.
Statman, D.: 2000, ‘Humiliation, Dignity and Self-Respect’, Philosophical Psychology 13(4), 523-540.
Szawarski, Z.: 1986, ‘Dignity and Responsibility’, Dialectics and Humanism (2–;;3), 193-205.
Zhang, Q.: 2000, ‘The Idea of Human Dignity in Classical Chinese Philosophy: A Reconstruction of Confucianism’, Journal of Chinese Philosophy 27(3), 299-330.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nordenfelt, L. Dignity and the care of the elderly. Med Health Care Philos 6, 103–110 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024110810373
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024110810373