Daily Verse | Matthew 20:16
“So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

Monday’s Reading: Matthew 23-25

Happy Monday my friends. It may be raining cats and dogs out there, but at least it’s not hailing taxis.

Glad to be back in the saddle this morning.

One of the claims that we often hear from all sides in our cultural conversation is that human beings deserve “dignity and respect.” I agree with that notion. My affirmation of the dignity and respect of all people comes from my understanding of humans beings being made — created — in the image of God.

So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

— Genesis 1:27

If humans were created by God and intrinsically exhibit his likeness, then every person has infinite worth and value because God himself has infinite worth and value. “Dignity” transcends race, sex, IQ, nationality, wealth, religion, social status, education and vocation, protecting all human beings from being considered worthless, the weakest among us in particular.

But not everybody believes that human beings were created by God (Steven Pinker’s article in the New Republic titled “The Stupidity of Dignity”) or that human beings even have a right to dignity (as Conor O’Mahony argues in the International Journal of Constitutional Law). For them, “dignity” is an ambiguous term that has no real place in arguing for or against a particular legal claim. (For instance, Pinker would argue that “autonomy” is a better term to use, but his reasons for using that term fail under the arguments he makes against the term “dignity” in his essay.)

Even so, the argument that all human beings deserve “dignity and respect” is undoubtedly used by people who are atheists or agnostics. Often they are using the point to argue in favor of some “right” or moral behavior that is not yet recognized in society but that, from their perspective, should be. “Gay rights” comes to mind, as does racial reconciliation.

Here’s the problem with advancing an argument on the basis of according someone “dignity and respect” in the absence of a Creator God: there is no intrinsic value on which “dignity and respect” can be based. If human beings simply evolved from primordial soup over billions of years, then there is no such thing as intrinsic worth, and “dignity and respect” are invented concepts that can only have utilitarian meanings.

In the absence of an external Source of value, claiming that human beings must be treated with dignity and respect is only an opinion. It may be a helpful opinion, but it is only an opinion that has no grounding in anything other than one person’s (or people’s) claim.

Further, if “dignity and respect” (or intrinsic value) isn’t grounded in some transcendent moral system, such as one created by God, then it cannot ever be considered irrevocable or “true” truth. Human beings are then consigned to living out the natural consequence of a life that rewards the survival of the fittest.

In other words, “dignity and respect” is a utilitarian tactic employed only to advance the interests of the person or group benefitting from that claim.

So when someone claims that a certain subset of people should be treated with “dignity and respect” as an argument for granting that group a new right or privilege that until then had been restricted, we might want to ask upon what they are basing their claim. And if they cannot offer more support for their position other than “my opinion,” we must point that out and ask them what makes their opinion morally superior to ours.

Once we establish that it is only their opinion and that their opinion is no more or less important than ours, we must also ask them to define what they mean by “dignity” and “respect.” For you will find that treating someone with “dignity and respect” means accepting what that person wants to do without interference or objection, even if what they want to do is contrary to your opinion (or society’s opinion) of what is morally right or wrong.