Promoting Human Rights and Human Dignity in an Axial Age

In 1953 the German philosopher, Karl Jaspers, wrote The Origin and Goal of History. In that important book, Jaspers described the period between 800 and 200 B.C.E., which he called the Axial Age, in the following way:

During the Axial Age there appeared on the horizon of human consciousness a series of reverberations that were to shake, dismantle, and reconfigure the foundations of human thinking in various parts of the world.^[2] This period of history saw some very extraordinary people appear. These include Confucius and Lao Tze in China, the Buddha in India, the Prophets of Israel in Mesopotamia, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle in Greece, and the extraordinary visionary—Zoroaster—in Persia.

The Axial Age was remarkable because it was a time of great upheaval and suffering, a time of tremendous violence, instability, and social disruption. The violence was facilitated by new technologies of death associated with horsemanship and the invention of the chariot. But the Axial Age was also a time when humanity, as a species, acquired the conceptual tools and the social pressures that would compel it to build a new mind. Since the mind is the reservoir from which civilization flows, the Axial Age gave birth to new forms of civilization.^[3]

We invoke the memory of the Axial Age because it could be argued that for a little more than a century and a half we have been living in another axial period in human history. As compared to earlier eras, the rate of growth and change, in nearly every sphere of human engagement, has accelerated greatly. For example, alongside unprecedented degrees of suffering and exploitation, we have seen a flowering of human aspiration for freedom, for an end to conflict and violence, for greater sharing of the world’s resources. We have seen an explosion of knowledge about the condition of the world and this expansion of awareness makes it possible for us to address problems the likes of which we have never considered before. Nowhere is change greater than as relates to relations among and between peoples of different cultures, races, classes, and nations. The global scope and ethical core of the changes underway are captured succinctly in humanity’s growing concern for human dignity, development, and human rights.

When we seek to protect human dignity we are concerned with guarding the human race from that which would thwart or arrest the actualization of human potential. And while dignity, as the literature and discourse on human rights suggests, is the birth right of all human beings, as the horrific violence of the twentieth century has shown, human dignity is vulnerable to ideologies that justify the sacrifice of human security and development to private, cultural, or national interests. In this paper we suggest that if the unique capacities and potentialities that define the human species and that provide a focus for human rights are to be safeguarded, the influence of the doctrine of materialism on the effort to advance human dignity will need to be addressed.

Our overall purpose is to demonstrate that modern conceptualizations of human rights and human dignity embody a universal notion of what it means to be human; that the emergence and global spread of such a notion is an essential element of the spirit of the age in which we live and serves as one of the most significant conceptual achievements of our times. We seek further to show that contemporary conceptualizations of human rights and human dignity are in tension with materialism because they are grounded in the recognition that the protection of civilization, in all of its forms, depends not merely on the machinery required for material development, but upon the protection and cultivation of the universal moral, intellectual, and spiritual capacities that are embodied in the notion of the “human spirit”. Here we provide a rational account of the nature and needs of the human spirit and suggest that to the extent that development and human rights advocates neglect discussion of it they surrender the civilizing process to the narrow range of accomplishments that may be brought within the scope of those materialistic philosophies that have dominated development discourse for a half century. We begin our exploration of these themes by reflecting on the great moral and conceptual achievement of the century just ended.

The twentieth century was the most turbulent century in the history of the human race. Referring to this period, the Universal House of Justice wrote:

Notwithstanding the devastation visited upon the human race during the twentieth century, that century has also been referred to as “the century of light.” The light that marked the twentieth century as a turning point in the history of humankind was the dawn of the consciousness of the oneness of humanity.

In reflecting on the significance of this development, the scientific journal Nature published an edited volume containing twenty-one discoveries reported in that journal during the twentieth century that “changed science and the world.”^[6] The journal titled their volume, A Century of Nature, and opened it with the 1925 paper reporting Raymond Dart’s discovery of Austalopithecus africanus. Dart’s discovery in physical anthropology was revolutionary because it was the first in a chain of discoveries that would prove the monogenesis of all peoples. Dart’s work, which linked all human beings to a common ancestor, would be followed by similar discoveries made by many others over the course of the century.^[7]

In the young science of psychology, the principle of the oneness of humankind was to be demonstrated in the discovery of universal principles that govern the nature and development of the human brain and mind, and that shape human response to justice and love—as well as injustice, cruelty, trauma and violence.^[8] Notwithstanding appreciation for the vast range of human diversity, today, all of the sciences that take as their focus the human being affirm the essential oneness of the human race.

In the realm of ideals and collective aspirations, the principle of the oneness of humankind would incarnate itself in a practical way in 1945 with the establishment of the United Nations.^[9] The Preamble to the UN Charter affirms “faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.” Following in December of 1948, ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provided the first globally agreed upon covenant that would enshrine international commitment to the principle of the essential oneness of humankind.^[10] At the heart of the document was the inspiring conviction that each human person is born into the world as a trust of the whole and that notwithstanding our diversity we constitute a single human family.

In addition to the birth and evolution of the human rights movement, as Frances Fukuyama has argued, the twentieth century saw the victory of liberal democracy.^[11] And while many scholars dispute Fukuyama’s conclusion that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the ‘triumph of democracy’ signified ‘the end of history’, it would be reasonable to argue that during the twentieth century the liberal democratic movement won many friends. Indeed, democratization efforts continue to spread across the world today.^[12] Underlying the growing popularity of this system of governance is the recognition that democratic rule is more in harmony with the protection of human rights than authoritarian, oligarchic, or monarchic regimes. Part of the appeal of democracy is that it shows respect for human dignity by empowering human beings to develop their innate capacities and affords opportunities for the use of those capacities in the governance of human affairs.

We have argued elsewhere that the universal capacities that define and distinguish the human species are embodied in the notion of the human spirit.^[13] These capacities consist of the capacity to know, the capacity to love, and the capacity to will. When awakened and nurtured, the capacity to know stirs humanity in its ceaseless search for knowledge and wisdom; the capacity to will motivates us to pursue that which is thought to be good; and the capacity to love animates our attraction to beauty and our longing for connection to nature, to one another, and to that which is sacred. Human development results, essentially, from the cultivation and refinement of these capacities. As these capacities unfold and express themselves in the life of the community, we see the emergence and efflorescence of the sciences, arts, and systems of ethics and jurisprudence upon which civilization depends. We also witness the incarnation in human action, and in the functioning of human institutions, those virtues that redound to human honor and dignity, and which give order and harmony to the social world.

We have suggested that the health and prosperity of humankind depends upon the actualization of these capacities; that these capacities constitute humanity's intrinsic value; and that the protection and development of these capacities is the ultimate goal of all morally authentic relationships and all legitimate systems of community and governance. The development and protection of the human spirit thus serves as an appropriate focus for adjudicating the moral legitimacy of any human act, any social policy, or any cultural practice. For these reasons the protection of the human spirit provides the essential focus for all human rights endeavors. In addition, over the course of the twentieth century efforts to protect the human spirit have come to focus increasingly on the preservation of human dignity. One reason for this is a growing recognition that human dignity is tied inextricably to the capacities that animate the human spirit and that the protection and development of the human spirit is the only sure way for advancing the prosperity of humankind in the fullest sense of the term.^[14]

When we speak of human dignity, we are concerned with the dignity that goes hand in hand with being a human being. As we have suggested, the widespread notion that all human beings constitute a single race, and thus share common needs and aspirations is, historically speaking, a new idea. Prior to the twentieth century, the concept of dignity was largely tied to social address and was a matter of social permission. In the minds of the masses, human dignity was very much linked to hierarchy and one’s racial, gender, or economic status in comparison to the status of others.^[15]

At the end of the second World War, as a consequence of the hubris and inhumanity of the Nazis, the concept of dignity began to center upon the inherent value of the human person – whatever his or her race, nationality, culture, creed, or station in life. Today, the “inherent worth of human beings” is the vocabulary that is customarily employed in human rights literature to capture the notion of human dignity. In other words, the notion of human dignity has become tied to the irreducible ontological status of each member of the human race. “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,” affirms Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. “They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires that “all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person” (Article 10); and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights prescribes that “education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity” (Article 13). Further references to the protection of human dignity appear in a number of international covenants, transnational accords, and national constitutions.

It was, of course, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) who, in the 18^th Century, introduced in the clearest and most detailed terms, the concept of intrinsic dignity. It would take more than two centuries, however, for this idea to find universal expression in humanity’s political affairs. The concept of intrinsic dignity has had to compete with conceptions of human beings that sought to associate human dignity with ephemeral standards and socially constructed values—such as skin color, gender, degree of material culture, level of education, or religious affiliation.

Inasmuch as the preservation of human dignity is a prerequisite for safeguarding the healthy development of the human spirit, references to human dignity in official human rights documents have proliferated. A content analysis, undertaken by the current authors, of more than 100 human rights documents penned over the course of the last century reveals more than a dozen ways that the concept of human dignity serves as a basis for advancing human rights claims:

What is common to all of these usages is the recognition that human rights can be protected only when the moral conditions that are necessary for the development and expression of human capacities are preserved and the ethical standards that are required for the preservation of human dignity are respected.

Notwithstanding the recognition that the preservation of human dignity requires the protection of humanity’s unique spiritual and intellectual capacities, as has been noted by Kenneth Pargament and others, for most of the twentieth century academics, development workers and human rights advocates have either ignored humanity’s spiritual capacities and concerns, viewed them as pathological, or treated them as by-products of processes that can be reduced to more basic underlying psychological, social, and physiological functions.^[16] The Institute for Studies in Global Prosperity put the issue in the following way:

As has been noted by William Hatcher, “to succeed, the human enterprise needs knowledge that is both true (accurate) and useful (for the satisfaction of human needs).”^[18] The twentieth century revealed an essential complementarity between the empirical and rational demands of science and the ethical conduct required of human beings if our relationships to one another and to nature are to secure life and promote development. At the heart of an approach that has begun to crystalize in the wake of the devastations of the last century is an ethical commitment to the oneness of the human race and the conviction that life and development are sustained by the creation and maintenance of unity within the context of diversity. In contrast to a wholly materialistic perspective, the emerging paradigm affords consideration of ethical and spiritual principles vital to any meaningful discourse on human needs and human rights. If they are to be comprehensive, if they are to escape the quagmire of superstition, and if they are to be universal in their appeal, these principles must be derived from an integration of knowledge obtained through empirical research, reasoned discourse, and the writings of the world’s wisdom traditions —as they constitute the primary reservoir of humanity’s ethico-spiritual heritage.

The tradition of human rights and development scholarship that is required for this new age must seek to harvest the greatest insights contained in all of the world’s sacred, philosophical, and empirical traditions. Its epistemological outlook, its methodological openness, and its commitment to rendering scholarship a tool for the advancement of civilization are incompatible with parochial commitments to any particular ideological, methodological or epistemological camp. We must be inspired by a vision of pragmatic scholarship and deep philosophical inquiry into the human condition that has begun to emerge in the light of the pressing needs of the twenty-first century.

The protection of human dignity requires the recognition that each person possesses inherent value that is independent of any purpose that their labor, or their bodies, or even their minds may serve. Emmanuel Kant, David Velleman and William Hatcher have each suggested that perception of another’s intrinsic value, which is inherently linked to their dignity, is the basis for all genuine human relationships. In Velleman’s view, a minimal perception of human dignity generates respect, while a maximal response to it evokes the spirit of love. What respect and love have in common is that in both cases, the individual is seen as possessing inherent value and her goals and aspirations play important roles in determining the course of human affairs. In the realm of human rights law, such concern for another is embodied in the concern for justice.^[19]

In his important essay, “Love and Barriers to Love” Raymond Bergner argues that the inability to perceive humans in all their uniqueness and dignity is the chief obstacle to love.^[20] In quoting Singer, Bergner writes that in true love, “The lover takes an interest in the beloved as a person, and not merely as a commodity.” He goes further to note that “Love is a relationship in which, for the lover, the beloved is another person—is, in Martin Buber’s terms, a “thou” and not an ‘it’.” Loving involves what Martha Nussbaum calls eudaimonistic judgments: the judgment that something is valuable because it empowers a person to lead a good human life and the judgment that an individual is of intrinsic value. The claim is that another has value that does not depend on one’s own personal goals and projects. In other words, another’s value is not merely a matter of social utility. Nussbaum further claims that if it is to be ethical, an emotion that takes as its focus another human being must involve this dimension.

One may contrast this perspective with an appetite one might feel towards, say, food. Leaving aside consumption of animal products, for most of us, food does not have inherent value. Its only value is that it serves to keep us alive. My interest in food, for example, is only about me, nothing else. In Nussbaum’s words, it is a push: there is something in me that requires fulfillment and food satisfies the criteria. There is a similarity here to Bergner’s concept of the “imperialist role assigner” who “loves” others only insofar as they fulfill a personal need. No perception of intrinsic value exists, and this absence of real concern for the other insures a me-centered relationship. The global crisis in human trafficking, the exploitation of women and girls that is a common feature of the sex trade and pornographic industries, the high rates of violence perpetrated by governments in the pursuit of power, and the dehumanizing suffering that results from chronic poverty and unemployment in many parts of the world are among the social ills that reflect disregard for human dignity.

The significant development with respect to international human rights law is that the value of the human person can now be conceptualized in two different senses. First, human rights initiatives seek to protect the physical security and integrity of the human person by providing access to those political rights that would empower the community to protect itself from the tyranny of the state^[21]; and second, thanks to second^[22] and third^[23] generations of human rights, as well as the pioneering work of Amartya Sen, Martha Nussbaum, Johannes Morsink, Jack Donnelly and others, human rights aim, increasingly, to secure the identity of persons as persons.^[24] Thus, we are coming to recognize that notwithstanding the power of international law to protect against assaults to the physical security and integrity of persons as members of specific groups, the dignity of humankind can be protected if, and only if, the cultivation of the capacities that distinguish and ennoble human life become the focus of our common striving as a species.

We have suggested that over the course of the twentieth century a universal concept of human identity began to emerge. Such a notion takes as its focus the human spirit and concern for the protection of the human spirit has empowered the architects of the human rights movement to justify human rights claims. We have suggested further that the protection and refinement of the human spirit has been inextricably linked to the protection of human dignity because human dignity derives from the capacities that define and animate the human spirit. These capacities include the capacity to know – which takes as its object truth, the capacity to love – which takes as its object beauty, and the capacity to will – which takes as its object that which is perceived to be good. From these three capacities flow all of the artistic, social, moral, intellectual, and technological resources that render human life both possible and meaningful. For these reasons we argued that preoccupation with the material aspects of society, without due regard to the protection and refinement of the human spirit confuses means with ends, endangers human dignity, and imperils achievement of human rights goals.

Throughout our discussion, we sought to advance the thesis that the emergence of the concept of the oneness of humanity represents a new stage in the long evolutionary process in the collective life of humanity. Were we to draw the implications of this concept to its logical conclusion, it would imply a very great leap forward in human rights discourse because it implicates the need for a radical change in the structure of human society. The magnitude of the transformation that the oneness of humanity implies has been captured succinctly in the work of Shoghi Effendi with which we now close: