Human dignity and the right to dignity

in terms of legal personalism

(From conception of static dignity to conception of dynamic one)
Prof. Habil. Dr. Alfonsas Vaivila
Mykolas Romeris University Faculty of Law Department of Philosophy of Law
Ateities str. 20 L!"0#$0$ %ilnius
!elephone 2&' () *&
+"mail tfk,mruni.eu
Human dignity
Actual protection of human ri-hts re.uests lo-ically clear le-al concepts
le-ally esta/lishe0 or thorou-hly 0iscusse0 in le-al 0octrine that woul0 /e e.ually
un0erstoo0 in 0ifferent applica/le situations an0 woul0 presuppose ri-hts an0 0uties of
unam/i-uous /ehavior. 12uman 0i-nity3 an0 1ri-ht to 0i-nity3 are concepts also /oun0
to such 0iscussion.
!he ri-ht to 0i-nity is nowa0ays accepte0 as 1the hi-hest human ri-ht3 1the
source of ri-hts3.
'
2owever the transfer from emphasis of the ri-ht4s meanin- to
revelation of its content 0iscloses immense variety of opinions /oth in the philosophical
an0 le-al literature
2
/esi0es 0i-nity has often /een insepara/le from the ri-ht to 0i-nity
the ri-ht itself is not 0ifferentiate0 in the terms of sua/ility an0 su/5ective ri-ht6 0i-nity
an0 its ori-in has /een rarely linke0 to the cultural human activity. 7t stren-thens the
'
Francisco Fernan0e8 9e-a0o. :o0nosc c8lowieka 5ako na5wy;s8a wartosc por8<0ku prawne-o w
2is8panii. == :o0no>? c8@owieka 5ako kate-oria prawa. Po0 re0. Arystiana Bomplaka. Croc@aw. 200'. 9.
'&*.
2
Matthies Aettner. MenschenwDr0e als Ee-riff un0 Metapher 7rm-arr0 9chult8. 9oll 0ie 1CDr0e 0es
Menschen3 politisch o0er philosophisch /e-rDn0et wer0enF '**(. 2am/ur-er 7nstitut fDr 9o8ialforschun-.6
Eal8er P. Rippe A.P. 9chwa/er P. MenschenwDr0e versus CDr0e 0er Areatur. Frei/ur-"MDnchen. '**#6
Een0a +. +rpro/un- 0er MenschenwDr0e als Pro/lem 0er so8ialen Cirklichkeit 1Aus Politik un0
Geit-eschichte3. '*#H nr.$6 Eru--er C. MenschenwDr0e Menschenrechte :run0rechte. Ea0en"Ea0en
'**&6 +0elman E. La 0i-nitI 0e la personne humaine un concept nouveau 1Droit3 '**& nr. '6 :o0no>?
c8@owieka 5ako kate-oria prawa. Po0 re0. Arystiana Bomplaka. Croc@aw. 200'.
in0etermination of the concepts of 0i-nity an0 of the ri-ht to 0i-nity an0 makes their
application in practice more 0ifficult.
!he framework of this paper hin0ers /roa0er 0iscussion of the pro/lem
relate0 research an0 criteria that make human 0i-nity reco-ni8a/le in le-al practice. An
eJtensive amount of literature in various lan-ua-es is availa/le on the issue. !he author
of this paper aims to present a specification of the concept of human 0i-nity approachin-
it in terms of ri-hts4 an0 0uties4 su/or0ination as well as 0ifferentiatin- the ri-ht to
0i-nity in terms of sua/ility an0 su/5ective law.
!he ri-ht to 0i-nity has /een usually eJplaine0 throu-h its o/5ectivistically
un0erstoo0 ori-inK it has /een claime0 that this ri-ht has neither /een -rante0 /y the state
nor create0 /y the person himself or herself /ut eJists 1irrespectively of sex, race and
nationality, as well as from life style. Every human being has been provided
(ausgestattet) with it Dignity is related to human subsistence (Mensch!ein) itself" no
one can ta#e this right to dignity away. $his right is owned not only by the honest, but
also by dictators, children molesters or other asocial individuals Even an unborn life
in the body of a mother, mortally ill () have the matterofcourse dignity.%.
$

!his is meant to say that an in0ivi0ual himself or herself is not involve0 in
creation of his or her 0i-nity that 0i-nity is put into the person like a rea0y"ma0e
conformation from asi0e that it is like a /iolo-ical human property that may neither /e
-iven nor create0 or lost that is characteristic even to the 1un/orn life in the /o0y of a
mother3.
9uch ontolo-i8ation an0 a/solutation of some o/5ective features lyin- in the
essence of 0i-nity comes from the Bhristian tra0ition that has starte0 an0 5ustifie0 the
concept of the passive 0i-nity. Accor0in- to the tra0ition 0i-nity is neither a creation of
the society nor of the person himself or herself it rises from the suppositional fact that
human /ein- has /een create0 followin- the picture of :o0 it has a 0ivine immortal soul
that -ives unmeasure0 worth calle0 0i-nity to every human /ein-. !herefore if 0i-nity is
not provi0e0 to a person /y people it means it can neither /e taken away or limite0 /y
people. At this point we come across the so"calle0 one"0imension personal worth.
$
Richter 2. P. Luristische :run0kurse. Ean0 20. Lochen GenthMfer. Rechtsphilosophie. Eerlin. 200'. 9. &H.
!he a/ove 0escri/e0 tra0itions of the passive or static 0i-nity has one way
or another affecte0 various le-al acts international 0eclarations an0 conventions. !he
%ir-inia 0eclaration N%ir-ina Eill of Ri-hs '&&).%7.'O claimsK 1All people are /orn
e.ual free an0 have certain inborn rights N/ol0e0 /y authorO that as soon as in0ivi0uals
accept the status of society may not /e taken away /y any later a-reements ma0e /y their
0escen0ants3 NArticle 'O. !he same tra0ition of 1in/orn ri-hts3 althou-h in a weaker
form has /een continue0 in the &niversal Declaration of 'uman (ights N'*(*OK 1All
human /ein-s are /orn free an0 e.ual in 0i-nity an0 ri-hts3 NArticle 'O.
!he a/ove statements i-nore the fact that /irth may /ecome a source of
ri-hts only if society in which 1the /irth has happene03 is rea0y to reco-ni8e a priori
each person as worth. !his is not however a universal fact. 2istory names primitive
societies that force0 /y their survival nee0s an0 low economic possi/ilities that coul0
assure such nee0s were killin- )the born free and e*ual in dignity and rights% /ut weak
/a/ies powerless ol0 people as if they 0i0 not know that these /a/ies an0 ol0 people
)were born e*ual in dignity and rights% to other mem/ers of the society. 7n slavehol0in-
an0 feu0al societies only the no/le were taken as 0i-nifie06 the ri-ht to 0i-nity was not
reco-ni8e0 for slaves an0 villains )born free and e*ual in dignity and rights% an0
)created by the same +od%" the latter people were only -rante0 a status of 1talkin- la/or
instruments3. !he Lewish an0 -ypsies in the Pa8i :ermany were also not treate0 as
su/5ects of the ri-ht to 0i-nity.
!his proves that the ri-ht to 0i-nity is a historical an0 social cate-ory of the
N0emocratically oriente0O positive law. !he theolo-ical an0 /iolo-ical attitu0es to human
0i-nity coinci0e in that fact that in /oth cases human 0i-nity NworthO is 0istin-uishe0
from society an0 from cultural activity of the person on -roun0s of what the concept of
the passive or the static 0i-nity is formulate0. 2owever the 0i-nity of a person
-enetically appearin- /eyon0 the society an0 cultural activity must have /ecome
inapproacha/le an0 therefore mystical for scientific co-nition. +Jplainin- it criticality
ha0 to -ive place to 0o-matism.
Eut if the ri-ht to 0i-nity is still a ri-ht then ri-ht always /e-ins with a
permission to o/tain certain -oo0 or to use such owne0 for performance of certain 0uties
Nor0ers o/li-ationsO. !herefore talkin- a/out ri-ht a .uestion may not /e avoi0e0 on
where 0oes a person -et a permission to treat oneself as -oo0 an0 why is he or she
re-ar0e0 as -oo0 NvirtueO /y other personsF !he answer to the first part of the .uestion is
Q from society or-ani8e0 into a state /ecause law eJists only in an or-ani8e0 society
where accepte0 virtues eJist in a territory of a certain society universally. !here are no
permissions an0 or0ers neJt to society therefore there is no law. Ro/inson 0oes not know
law an0 the ri-ht to 0i-nity not /ecause he 1has not /een create0 /y :o03 an0 /ecause he
has not inherite0 1human nature3 /ut o/viously /ecause he lives /eyon0 the /oun0aries
of societyK there is no one at whose respect to claim an0 prove one4s worth an0 from
whom to re.uest reco-nition of such worth. !hus claimin- that a human /ein- )has the
right to dignity irrespective of any social legal order% is talkin- a/out anythin- /ut law.
Eut if we 0o not know what is law how can we know what is 1the ri-ht to
0i-nity3 as a special case of law in -eneralF 7n or0er for the 1un/orn life in the /o0y of a
mother3 to have the ri-ht to 0i-nity that 1/o0y of a mother3 must eJist in a society
or-ani8e0 into a state a society that follows appropriate virtues an0 their hierarchy. Eut
in this case society must solve a collisionK how acknowle0-ment that 1an un/orn life in
the /o0y of a mother has the ri-ht to 0i-nity3 can /e com/ine0 with the universally
accepte0 su/5ective mother4s ri-ht to her /o0yF
Lithuanian laws in force 0o not 0efine the concept of 0i-nity. !his function
has /een left for the competence of le-al 0octrine an0 le-al practice. !he 9enate of
Lu0-es of the 9upreme Bourt of Lithuania 0efine0 honor an0 0i-nity in their Rulin- Po. '
of 'H May '**# as 1person4s self"evaluation that is 0etermine0 /y society4s evaluation3.
(
7t is a 0ominatin- 0efinition of 0i-nity not only in Lithuania. Philosophical literature
summari8in- the research on the topic in .uestion /asically a0vocates the same
conception of passive 0i-nityK it 0efines human 0i-nity as personal awareness of own
social value as the ri-ht to re.uest respect from society /ase0 on human worth accepte0
/y the society.
H

!he ori-in of social human 0i-nity althou-h a little too stron- was alrea0y
in the '&
th
c. 0efen0e0 /y an +n-lish philosopher !homas 2o//esK 12uman 0i-nity the
pu/lic worth of a man which is the value set on him /y the commonwealth3.
)
2owever
(
Decree Po. ' of the 9enate of the 9upreme Bourt of Lithuania N'**#.%.'HO. Q !eismR praktika. '**#. Po.
*. P. H2.
H
STUVWVXWYZ[ \]^TYUV_`aT[ b. 2. coWY/a. '*)2. d.H#.
)
!omas 2o//es. Leviathan. %. '***. P.'0(.
as we will see later 2o//es also reco-ni8e0 the role of the person himself or herself in
creatin- one4s worth /y which he raise0 assumptions for formation of the concept of
active 0i-nity.
!he ten0ency to 0efine human 0i-nity as 1self"evaluation 0etermine0 /y
societal evaluation3 eJpresses an i0ea a/out eJistence of o/5ective an0 su/5ective 0i-nity
features a/out their interaction where pro/a/ly the i0entity of human 0i-nity shoul0 /e
looke0 for.
Dignity as human worth rising from an individuals ability to live
properly in a society.
!o avoi0 0o-matism in the 0efinition of the 0i-nity concept it is important
to un0erstan0 which feature of the concept shoul0 start the eJplanation. !his can /e
shown /y the nominal meanin- of the term itself. 7n all national lan-ua-es human 0i-nity
is linke0 to human worth an0 the way the human /ein- un0erstan0s one4s worth. Di-nity
in Latin Q dignitas , worth, noble appearance, worth, dignatio , respect for someone in
Russian Q )dostoinstvo% in :erman " 10ie Menschenw-rde%, in +n-lish Q 0i-nity.
2owever not all meanin-s of the concept orient to the /e-innin-s of 0i-nity /ecause they
0escri/e the essence of 0i-nity throu-h the final result the worth instea0 of throu-h its
reason NsourceO or technolo-ies creatin- it. 7n this 0efinition one uninformative
a/straction N0i-nityO is 0efine0 /y another a/straction with the same level of
uninformativeness NworthO eva0in- the main .uestion on who forms this human worth if
it is multi0imensional an0 if there is a criterion that woul0 let human /ein- in0ivi0uali8e
valua/lyF 7f 0i-nity is not 0ifferentiate0 can then society make a 0ifference /etween a
violator of the ri-ht an0 a person loyal to the ri-htF
!he search for technolo-ies creatin- 0i-nity can /enefit from a nominal
meanin- of a Polish term 1godno./3 that has a meanin- of suita/ility Ngodnie , nobly,
worthily, properlyO neJt to the meanin- of worth an0 honor. !he Polish law theorists 0o
not 0irectly relate 0i-nity to appropriateness they still stick to the a/ove mentione0
tra0ition to 0efine 0i-nity throu-h a/stract worth. Marius8 La/lonski /asically repeats a
0efinition propose0 /y the 9upreme Bourt of Polan0K 1NeO 0i-nity is that fiel0 of
personality that is specifie0 /y human /ein-4s un0erstan0in- of own worth an0 waitin-
for respect from other human /ein-s NeO3.
&

An attempt to 0erive human 0i-nity technolo-ically from human /ein-4s
suita/ility is for the first time foun0 in the alrea0y mentione0 1Leviathan3 /y 2o//esK
12uman worth NeO is special power or a/ility for somethin- that as sai0 he or she is
worth this special a/ility is usually calle0 suitability or a0apta/ility3.
#
2o//es talks
a/out 1suita/ility3 as of human /ein-4s 1in/orn a/ility3 to perform certain 0uties
important for the society properly Nwith .ualityO. !hus this attitu0e at some level still
recalls the a/ove mentione0 theolo-ical an0 /iolo-ical opinions that are lookin- for
human worth neJt to socio"cultural activity althou-h 0i-nity itself is now treate0
instrumentally therefore shoul0 /e un0erstoo0 not as a feature Nnot as 1in/orn a/ility3O
/ut as human /ein-4s relation with the interests of the state or the society in terms of
implementation of the a/ove mentione0 attitu0es. 2o//es is tryin- to com/ine the
tra0itional attitu0es of theolo-y or /iolo-y Nthe o/5ective a/soluti8ation of 0i-nity
featuresO with the instrumental Nsu/5ectivistO attitu0e of the Pew !imes to human powers
that he wants to treat as instruments use0 /y the same person to settle in nature an0 in
society.
Eut if 0i-nity is a human /ein-4s relation with the society Nother human
/ein-sO then it cannot /e treate0 as 1in/orn su/sistence3 Q a /iolo-ical feature of a
human /ein-. Althou-h relate0 to in/orn /iolo-ical powers of human /ein-s it is still
0i-nity6 the powers themselves are not 0i-nity Nhuman worthO /ecause a person can use
the same 1in/orn powers3 /oth for an0 a-ainst the society. !hat is why they can at the
same time /e valuate0 /oth as useful an0 harmful therefore Q invalua/le for the society.
2owever 2o//es4 metho0 to eJplain human 0i-nity /ase0 on person4s
social suita/ility is un0ou/te0ly promisin- an0 presents a possi/ility to create the
conception of the active 0i-nity Q to eJplain rationally the ori-in content an0 social
purpose of 0i-nity.
&
La/lonski Marius8. Po5fcie i ochrona -o0no>ci c8@owieka w or8ec8nictwie or-anow w@a08y s<0ownic8e5
w Polsce. Q :o0no>? c8@owieka 5ako kate-oria prawa. Po0 re0. Arystiana Bomplaka. Croc@aw. 200'. 9.
2*H"2*).
#
!. 2o//es. 2o//es !. 1Leviathan3. P. '''.
The right to dignity in terms of suability and subective right.
7n0etermination of reasonin-s a/out 0i-nity appears also /ecause human 0i-nity as it has
/een tol0 alrea0y is often confuse0 with the ri-ht to 0i-nity an0 the ri-ht to 0i-nity itself
is treate0 notionally 0isre-ar0in- two levels of its possi/le eJistenceK sua/ility an0
su/5ective ri-ht. Cithout makin- this 0ifference it is unclear where 0oes human ri-ht to
0i-nity come from an0 what is 0i-nity itself as an o/5ect of the ri-ht to 0i-nity. 7s each
person valua/le only /ecause he pr she was /orn as a human /ein- or 0oes that initial
worth of the human /ein- eJist /ecause the society a priori reco-ni8es each person as a
su/5ect of law an0 un0ertakes to protect his or her vitally important interests there/y
in0irectly acknowle0-in- person4s worth an0 ri-ht NpermissionO to that worthF !ruly
speakin- if the society reco-ni8es every human /ein-4s ri-ht to life health free0om
personal immunitye it there/y accepts each person as worthy. +very person ac.uires
this -eneral NformalO worth without any personal efforts Nit is enou-h to /e /orn in a
civili8e0 society to ac.uire this level of worthO. !his is why such worth is calle0 static or
passiveK it cannot /e increase0 or re0uce06 tra0ition as it has /een mentione0 a/ove
i0entifies it with human 0i-nity. !his tra0ition avoi0s the .uestion of what is the role of
human /ein- himself or herself in creatin- his or her own social worth as an o/5ect of the
ri-ht to 0i-nity which in my opinion is the weakest part of the tra0ition.
Two levels of human worth ! the passive and the active. Relatin- 0i-nity
to the cultural activity of a person a possi/ility to 0istin-uish two levels of human worth
appearsK 'O worth that ori-inates from each person4s reco-nition as an su/5ect of law in
-eneral an0 that as it has /een mentione0 is the same to everyone /ecause is ac.uire0
from the society without personal effort Nperformance of 0utiesO an0 2O in0ivi0ual social
worth of a person that can /e create0 /y the person only throu-h fulfillment of
o/li-ations in respect of one4s nei-h/or which followin- the lo-ics of swap commits
other persons to reversi/le services.
!he 0istinction of the 0ifference re.uests specification of the 1ri-ht to
0i-nity3 itself i0entifyin- two possi/le ways for eJistence of such ri-ht Q sua/ility an0
su/5ective ri-htK
The right to dignity in terms of suability. 7f the ri-ht to 0i-nity is a ri-ht
then it as it has /een sai0 cannot /e /orn with as it may not /e ac.uire0 /eyon0 society.
!herefore the ri-ht to 0i-nity at level of sua/ility is a permission -rante0 to a person /y
the society or state from the moment of /irth to eJist properly in the society i.e. to create
one4s a/ility to use -rante0 permissions for fulfillment of o/li-ations. !his permission
ori-inates from person4s reco-nition as a su/5ect of law in -eneral an0 si-nifies society4s
o/li-ation to not encroach on an0 to protect person4s vitally important interests. At this
point a person4s worth completely coinci0es with the person4s reco-nition as a su/5ect of
law in -eneral i. e. with reco-nition of his or her ri-hts to life health free0om personal
immunitye an0 with the society4s commitment to accept the a/ove -oo0s as social an0
personal values. !hat is why this level of worth is reco-ni8e0 e.ually to everyoneK no
person in his or her worth stan0s a/ove or /elow others. 7t is formal worth that is
reco-ni8e0 to persons /y international 0eclarations conventions an0 national
constitutions. !herefore person4s ri-ht to 0i-nity at this level 10oes not 0epen0 on
person4s seJ race social status an0 lifestyle3 /ecause this as it has /een tol0 alrea0y is
not conferment of in0ivi0uali8e0 worth /ut only reco-nition of a formal permission to
ac.uire it to a person i.e. to take up any activity Nperformance of 0utiesO not /anne0
le-ally there/y create eJistential means swap them with a nei-h/or on the -roun0s of
e.uivalent swaps an0 so form one4s in0ivi0ual social worth the content of which shall
consist not of /iolo-ical person4s properties /ut of services provi0e0 to a nei-h/or /ase0
on such /iolo-ical properties.
!his ri-ht at level of sua/ility may neither /e taken away nor lost /ecause it
0oes not -ive to a person any particular -oo06 it only -ives a permission to create such
-oo0 or ac.uire it throu-h swap. !he society itself is intereste0 in -rantin- such
permission to a human /ein- /ecause it is important for the society that the person woul0
0evelop as personality useful Nvalua/leO /oth for himself or herself an0 the society takin-
the followin- assumptions into consi0erationK life health free0ome Limitin- inhi/itin-
this permission Nri-htO woul0 mean to inhi/it person4s possi/ilities to 0evelop one4s
a/ility to live properly Nun0er con0itions of peace an0 cooperationO an0 there/y increase
the -eneral level of society4s humanity.
Eut if the person for whom -eneral NformalO worth has /een reco-ni8e0 is
still re.ueste0 to use permissions Nri-htsO for performance of appropriate 0uties it shows
that -eneral worth of the person is insufficient /ecause as it has /een tol0 alrea0y is
reco-ni8e0 for a person prior to him or her takin- up any activity an0 0oes not 0epen0 on
the social content of the activityK a--ressive or respectful the activity is in respect of
another person. 7t is only the worth of a passive human /ein- -rante0 for a person from
asi0e /ase0 on a fact that this human /ein- has /een /orn in a civili8e0 society.
Meanwhile the ri-ht to 0i-nity speaks a/out the worth of an active person Nusin- the
ri-hts an0 performin- appropriate 0utiesO. An0 the worth of an actin- person must /e
somethin- more than formal worth an0 that 1more3 may not appear from somethin- else
/ut from the person4s positive actions in respect of a nei-h/or that will increase an0
specify the -eneral worth of a person.
The right to dignity in terms of subective right. The unity of rights and
duties is a legal formula of human dignity
A/solutely 0ifferent is the ri-ht to 0i-nity in terms of su/5ective ri-ht cause
it implies reali8ation of the ri-ht to 0i-nity at level of sua/ility i.e. the necessity for the
person himself or herself to create his or her in0ivi0uali8e0 therefore sapi0 an0
0ifferentiate0 social worth /y performin- 0uties an0 to ac.uire the su/5ective ri-ht in
respect of it. 9uch self"creation 0eman0s for person4s sapi0 worth to /e 0erive0 from
person4s a/ility to live properly in a society followin- specific values.
Eut what 0oes the person have to /e suita/le for to make the society value
him or her more than formal reco-nition of the person as a su/5ect of law in -eneral
commits the society an0 to have the person ac.uire proper reason to feel such worth an0
the cause of itF
aO A duty is the source of individuali"ed social worth. Eecause a human
/ein- is a social /ein- Nlives in a society an0 it is only the society where he or she
maintains his or her i0entityO his or her social suita/ility cannot eJpress itself in anythin-
/ut person4s a/ility to live in harmony with a nei-h/or. An0 only those who use ri-hts
NpermissionsO for performance of appropriate 0uties is suita/le for such harmonyK restrain
from actions that may cause 0an-er to the nei-h/or an0 use services provi0e0 /y other
persons /y means of e.uivalent swap.
2owever performance of 0uties 0oes not automatically /y itself create
person4s in0ivi0uali8e0 social worth.
/O #nly performance of free persons duties creates human dignity. For
the process of ac.uirin- 0i-nity it is important if /y fulfillin- 0uties the person ac.uires
the proprietary ri-ht to the -oo0 that he or she has create0 /y fulfillin- 0uties an0 that
woul0 /e /y the ri-ht protecte0 from other persons4 infrin-ement to -ratuitously use or
em/e88le it. 7f performance of 0uties 0oes not create such ri-ht then it 0oes not increase
person4s social worth either. Performance of 0uties the results of which can /e
-ratuitously em/e88le0 /y other persons is not value0 /y those other persons therefore
the performer of the 0uties is not value0 as well. An opportunity emer-es for other human
/ein- to treat the performer of 0uties Nto /e precise Q o/li-ationsO not as a tar-et /ut as
means for implementation of tar-ets set /y those persons or the state. gther persons usin-
the services provi0e0 /y such person are not reversionarily committe0 in his or her
respect or are committe0 out of proportion. 9omethin- that 0oes not commit
reversionarily is of smaller or no value at all. 9uch performance of 0uties starts to 0eny
an0 enslave the performer of 0uties instea0 of increasin- his or her human worth. !his
helps to un0erstan0 why in history a slave villain or a su/or0inate of totalitarian re-imes
was neither value0 nor consi0ere0 respecta/le 0espite /ein- turne0 into performers of
0uties to their masters or the state. Performance of 0uties 0i0 not create appropriate
su/5ective ri-hts for the performer to re.uest performance of 0uties from other persons
therefore it was ne-ation of worth instea0 of increase of the worth N0i-nityO an0 it was
enslavement of worth instea0 of li/eration of the performer of 0uties.
Meanwhile those that are committe0 to reversionary services un0erstan0 the
0ifficultness an0 compleJity of performance of 0uties the results of which he or she has
use0 an0 /ase0 on that awareness starts appreciatin- an0 valuin- those in respect of
whom he or she has to perform reversionary services there/y increasin- the social worth
of 0uties4 a00ressee. 7n0ivi0uals participate in creation of each other4s 0i-nity throu-h
reversionary services.
!herefore only 0i-nity of a free person can /e 0iscusse0 /ecause only
performance of 0uties eJecute0 /y such persons creates person4s in0ivi0ual social worth
as new social an0 psycholo-ical reality an0 the su/5ective ri-ht to re.uest similar
reversionary services from other persons or the state that use the results of performance
of 0uties eJecute0 /y this person an0 thereupon treat the performer of 0uties as an
a00ressee of reversionary 0uties an0 a social virtue. !his means that su/5ective ri-ht
ac.uire0 /y a free person to the -oo0 create0 throu-h performance of one4s 0uties an0 so
to appropriate 0e-ree of social worth is also characteristic of the meanin- of a proprietary
ri-htK no one can use the results of performance of person4s 0uties without permission of
the performer in .uestion an0 free of repayment in reversionary services. Pamely the
possi/ility to ac.uire the su/5ective proprietary ri-ht to the values create0 /y performance
of 0uties an0 to maintain it in swap relations ren0ers meanin- an0 value to performance
of 0uties turns it into source of human 0i-nity as in0ivi0uali8e0 social worth -ives a
reason for such person to consi0er oneself as worthy an0 re.uest appropriate respect from
society that he or she has provoke0 /y eJpressin- one4s actual respect for that society N/y
performance of 0utiesO. At this point all that society can 0o is reco-ni8e person4s
proprietary ri-ht to person4s 0e-ree of in0ivi0ual worth that he or she has create0 /y
performance of 0uties. !his new social an0 psycholo-ical reality create0 /y the person
himself or herself as increase of person4s self"creation Nsociali8ationO turns into a reason
for value"relate0 0ifferentiation of persons Nin terms of suita/ility to live in a societyO.
!his is a prove that society 0oes not an0 cannot -rant 0ifferentiate0 social worth to
human /ein-s6 all it can 0o is protocol it socially an0 commit in respect of the worth. 7t is
also a prove that the ri-ht to 0i-nity is characteristic of the meanin- of the proprietary
ri-ht. 7f there is no proprietary ri-ht there is no 0i-nity an0 ri-ht to 0i-nity.
!his lea0s to a conclusion that neither person4s ri-hts nor his or her 0uties
separately create 0i-nity as in0ivi0uali8e0 sapi0 social worth6 it is create0 only /y their
unity that makes all human ri-hts rational an0 comprehensi/le an0 turns human 0i-nity
into in0ivi0ual sapi0 0ynamic social an0 le-al cate-oryK 0i-nity is create0 an0 increase0
throu-h performance of 0uties an0 is re0uce0 an0 lost /y usin- ri-hts without
performance of appropriate 0uties i.e. threatenin- the ri-hts of other people.
7t means that only those can /e consi0ere0 as suita/le to live in a society
that ren0ers the form of ri-hts4 an0 0uties4 unity to its /ehavior which means reali8ation
of mutual /enefit. A person /ehavin- in this way is treate0 as socially useful an0
therefore valua/le Nhelpin- or not 0istur/in- other people in reali8in- their own ri-htsO /y
the society Nother personsO an0 the person himself or herself un0erstan0s this worth as
reco-nition of his or her suita/ility to live in a society.
Thus, the increase of persons social worth created through
performance of ones duties becomes an object of the right to dignity, and the
protection of the worth created turns the persons relation to society into the
subjective right to dignity.
!his makes one more in0epen0ent human ri-ht appear in the catalo-ue of
human ri-hts Q the ri-ht to 0i-nity appears neJt to the ri-hts eJistin- on the -roun0s of
persons4 -eneral NformalO worth.
Human dignity is a unity of obective and subective features. Derivation
of the ri-ht to 0i-nity from performance of 0uties shows that human 0i-nity cannot /e
only a su/5ective cate-ory Nwillful am/ition of own worthO /ecause suita/ility to live in a
society places 0eman0s on the person that the person himself or herself can neither
i0entify nor chan-e all he or she can 0o is accommo0ate 0o them there/y provin- his or
her suita/ility to live in this society. !his accommo0ation as it has /een mentione0 can
only take place /y performance of appropriate 0uties Q creation of -oo0s meanin-ful /oth
for oneself an0 for the society. !herefore at this point it is not enou-h to intro0uce oneself
as respecta/le NworthyO6 one4s necessity NworthO must /e constantly prove0 to others /y
creation of meanin-ful -oo0s an0 participation in e.uivalent swap. !he non"occasionally
mentione0 2o//es has once written that 1human value is determined by the buyer, not by
the seller. 0lthough human being (as is usually practiced) values himself or herself best,
his or her real value is not bigger than the one other people value him or her by%.
*

!his means to say that in terms of 0i-nity the person is not valua/le /y itself
/ut only in respect to other people an0 /y provi0in- of services /eneficial for other
persons4 nee0s6 other people value him or her as provi0er of services collea-ue an0
respecter of a forei-n ri-ht. !herefore takin- a person away from his or her lifestyle
Nperformance of 0utiesO woul0 mean takin- him or her away from personal a/ility to
participate in relations of e.uivalent swap i.e. from the a/ility to live in harmony with a
nei-h/or. !his kin0 of 0i-nity woul0 /ecome mystic unco-ni8a/le an0 /asically
worthless.
*
2o//es !. gp. .uote P.'0(.
Performance of 0uties an0 real -oo0 create0 there/y frames the o/5ective
/ase of 0i-nity an0 the su/5ective proprietary ri-ht of the creator to that -oo0 is the
su/5ective feature of 0i-nity /ecause it commits other people that want to use that -oo0 to
commit in response i.e. to reco-ni8e the worth of the -oo0 an0 of the creator not /y
action instea0 of wor0. !herefore property the si8e of salary or pension ac.uire0 throu-h
performance of 0uties is at the same time material eJpression of in0ivi0uali8e0 worth
actually reco-ni8e0 /y the society 0ifferentially certifyin- the .uality an0 scope of 0uties
performe0 /y the owner of the property in respect of a nei-h/or the scope that has
/ecome a reason to -et services of the same scope in return that are material eJpression
of the pu/lic reco-nition. !hen a person un0erstan0s why he or she is useful /oth for
himself or herself an0 the society an0 how those other persons eJternally eJpress NrepayO
the reco-nition of his or her worth. 9uch awareness allows him or her evaluate oneself
properly an0 1lift3 valua/ly. Ey creatin- pu/licly meanin-ful full throu-h performance of
0uties a person creates his or her 0i-nity as an o/5ect of the su/5ective ri-ht to 0i-nity.
$%ou will be what you will ma&e yourself'. Di-nity create0 /y human
cultural activity was also 0iscusse0 /y the Renaissance tra0ition that is relate0 to a work
calle0 )1ration on the Dignity of Man% presente0 /y a -reat thinker of the time
:iovanni Pico 0ella Miran0ola. Miran0ola un0erstoo0 human 0i-nity NworthO as social
reality create0 eJpressly /y the person himself or herself. 2e 0i0 formally reco-ni8e the
Bhristian tra0ition a/out the 0ivine ori-in of a man /ut eJplaine0 it takin- the nee0s of
the time into consi0eration i.e. followin- the -eneral attitu0e of the 0ay to a man as
creator of his happiness 0estiny an0 in0ivi0uali8e0 social worth. !he 0ivine creation of
man has not /een finishe0 the man has to constantly create oneself an0 his specific
historical forms of humanity NworthO. :o0 was sayin-K )2e have given you, 1 0dam, no
visage proper to yourself, nor endowment properly your own, in order that whatever
place, whatever form, whatever gifts you may, with premeditation, select, these same you
may have and possess through your own 3udgment and decision. $he nature of all other
creatures is defined and restricted within laws which 2e have laid down" you, by
contrast, impeded by no such restrictions, may, by your own free will, to whose custody
2e have assigned you, trace for yourself the lineaments of your own nature. 4 have
placed you at the very center of the world, so that from that vantage point you may with
greater ease glance round about you on all that the world contains. 2e have made you a
creature neither of heaven nor of earth, neither mortal nor immortal, in order that you
may, as the free and proud shaper of your own being, fashion yourself in the form you
may prefer. 4t will be in your power to descend to the lower, brutish forms of life" you will
be able, through your own decision, to rise again to the superior orders whose life is
divine.hh
'0

+very person is invite0 to take up various 0uties an0 throu-h their
performance to create to increase one4s in0ivi0ual social worth with no limits attache0
()through your own decision, to rise again to the superior orders whose life is divine%O
or in case of avoi0in- the 0uties to re0uce it N%to descend to the lower, brutish forms of
life%O. 7t is a hypothesis of 0i-nity as 0ynamic cate-ory.
The unity of rights and duties demystifies the human dignity. 2uman
0i-nity eJplaine0 throu-h the unity of ri-hts an0 0uties may /e an a00itional prove of the
fact that human 0i-nity is of social an0 cultural ori-in. 7t is not an 1in/orn3 nor a -rante0
feature it is a social value"/ase0 relation ori-inatin- from e.uivalent swap of services
performe0 /y persons with e.ual ri-hts. 7f 0i-nity is a le-al cate-ory not a le-itimate
cate-ory then law protectin- it must /e of no other form of eJistence than the
e.uili/rium /etween ri-hts an0 0uties6 its source must /e the cultural life of the person
an0 social con0itions Q person4s free0om an0 proprietary ri-ht to the pu/licly meanin-ful
-oo0 create0 throu-h performance of 0uties Ncultural activityO. gnly within 0epen0ent
societies person4s ri-ht to 0i-nity may /e a purely le-islative cate-ory as it can /e -rante0
as a privile-e /y law. 7n terms of worth a person is 0istin-uishe0 from the circle of other
in0ivi0uals not /y merits /ut on the -roun0s not relate0 to personal cultural activity
N/ack-roun0 party"favor level of nationalityeO.
!herefore statements claime0 /y authors who think that 10i-nity is -rante0
NausgestattetO to every human /ein- irrespective of seJ race or nationality as well as
lifestyle3
''
shoul0 not /e taken for -rante0. !he fact that human ri-ht to 0i-nity at
sua/ility level 0oes not 0epen0 on race seJ nationality an0 even on lifestyle is
comprehensi/le an0 we have 5ust prove0 it. Eut it woul0 /e a/solutely impossi/le to
'0
:iovanni Pico 0ella Miran0ola. gration on the Di-nity of Man. Q Rea0er of philosophy history.
Renaissance. %.3Mintis3. '*#(. P. '2$"'2(.
''
Richter 2. P. gp. .uote. 9. &H.
un0erstan0 if this attitu0e were also applie0 to the su/5ective ri-ht to 0i-nity /ecause it
woul0 /e unclear how this ri-ht can 10epen0 on lifestyle3 /ecause 1lifestyle3 is nothin-
more than relation of one person with other peopleK the fact whether the person commits
crimes or lea0s honest life has essential importance to the 0e-ree of a person4s suita/ility
an0 his or her in0ivi0uali8e0 social worth. Di-nity shall not /e affecte0 only /y issues of
lifestyle such as whether a person 0rinks tea or coffee in the mornin- /ecause this cannot
neither help nor harm other people. 7f the ri-ht to 0i-nity eJiste0 neJt to lifestyle in
-eneral it woul0 not /e possi/le to /e 0efine0 /ase0 on person4s suita/ility to live in a
society. 0fter all, lifestyle is nothing more than a way of a person5s specific existence in a
society. 7t is here important how a person eJists in that society Q in a peaceful or an
a--ressive way. PeJt to the society an0 lifestyle a human /ein- can neither /e
respecta/le nor unrespecta/le /ecause the reason for such 0istinction is eliminate0.
Dignity as foundation legitimating and creating the system of human
rights. !he 2elsinki Final Act '*&H says that human ri-hts 10erive from the inherent
0i-nity of the human person3 an0 1reco-nition of 0i-nity NeO e.ual soverei-n ri-hts
shall /e foun0ation for free0om an0 5ustice3.
'2
7t means that here attempt is ma0e to
.ualify 0i-nity as foun0ation of all human ri-hts. Eut it can eJist in such form only if
human 0i-nity is un0erstoo0 as person4s suita/ility for harmony an0 cooperation in other
wor0s if human ri-hts themselves are treate0 as social as well as in0ivi0ual -oo0. gnly
so un0erstoo0 person4s social suita/ility may encompass all human ri-hts an0 their
le-ality. !hen human ri-ht to life health free0om an0 ownership the ri-ht to ac.uire
.ualification an0 other ri-hts 0o not only assure personal autonomy they also /ecome
means an0 con0itions for human 0i-nity formation. !herefore violation of the specifie0
person4s ri-hts re0uce or /lock the person4s /iolo-ical material or .ualification powers to
performe 0uties that le-ali8e his or her ri-hts. Ceakenin- of the a/ility to perform 0uties
must also mean weakenin- of the a/ility to properly live in a society. For eJample in
case of violation of human ri-ht to health Nin5ury of a person4s /o0yO physical
possi/ilities of the person to perform certain 0uties are restricte0 for some time 0uties
throu-h performance of which the person has /een provin- actual suita/ility to live in a
society. A person incapa/le of performin- one4s 0uties sooner or later /e--ars
'2
2uman Ri-hts. Bollection of re-ional international 0ocuments. %ilnius. '**$. P. 2$2.
economically is not a/le to pay for some utilities for eJample an0 therefore is /ecomin-
a--ressive conflictin- an0 so less respecta/le an0 less suita/le to live in a society /ase0
on e.uality. At the same time he is -ra0ually /ecomin- more in nee0 of social care which
means official reco-nition an0 compensation of such person4s partly non"suita/ility.
gn the other han0 if a person is usin- his or her main ri-hts not for
maintenance an0 stren-thenin- of his or her suita/ility to live in a society then
le-itimacy of all his ri-hts is put in 0ou/t. 7n this case violation of human ri-hts is a fact
of such person4s non"suita/ility to live in a society in respect of a certain situation an0
performance of 5ustice is restriction of his or her su/5ective ri-ht to 0i-nity. 7mprisonment
means reco-nition that the convict appeare0 to /e 0isrespecta/le /y committin- crime
i.e. non"suita/le to live in a society of persons loyal to law therefore he or she /y
sanction assi-ne0 /y court is transferre0 to the society of in0ivi0ual with limite0 0i-nity
NprisonersO for a certain time. Restriction of the ri-ht to free0om in this case accompanies
restriction of the su/5ective ri-ht to 0i-nity.
7t shows that the ri-ht to 0i-nity inte-rates all human ri-hts an0 le-ali8e
them only /ecause -ives a possi/ility to value them in one -enerali8in- measure Q
person4s suita/ility to live in a society. 7t creates possi/ilities to treat person4s ri-hts an0
their system as a force creatin- human 0i-nity respectively to treat commitment of crime
as a case of person4s non"suita/ility to live in a society an0 eJecution of 5ustice Q as
restriction of the su/5ective ri-ht to human 0i-nity.
(hildrens right to dignity in terms of unity of rights and duties.
Discussin- the ri-ht to 0i-nity in terms of sua/ility an0 su/5ective ri-hts a possi/ility
appears to un0erstan0 what meanin- is ren0ere0 to the ri-ht to 0i-nity when 0i-nity of
people an0 the 0isa/le0 is taken into .uestion i.e. of persons that cannot o/5ectively
participate in swap relations therefore 0o not create their personali8e0 social worth.
!heir ri-ht to 0i-nity 0oes not superse0e the sua/ility level i.e. 0oes not superse0e that
level of worth which ori-inates from their reco-nition as o/5ects of law in -eneral.
Chat is treate0 as chil0ren4s 10i-nity3 is only that 0e-ree of their worth
which coinci0es with the society4s o/li-ation to protect their life health an0 to reali8e
their nee0 for stu0ies etc. i.e. the anticipatory reco-nition of the mentione0 chil0ren4s
nee0s as social values as there are chil0ren4s /iolo-ical an0 le-al assumptions to 0evelop
their a/ilities to create consuma/le values an0 participate in relations of e.uivalent swap
in the future /ase0 on those values i.e. to properly live in a society. !hus the society4s
an0 a chil04s attitu0es to human 0i-nity Nself"evaluationO 0iffer. A chil0 may think that the
fact that society forces him or her to -o to school until the a-e of ') violate0 his or her
ri-ht an0 thus humiliates his or her 0i-nity /ecause forces to -o somewhere where .uite
possi/le he or she 0oes not want to -o at the moment. 9ociety 0isre-ar0s this kin0 of
un0erstan0in- of 10i-nity3 /ecause follows /oth the chil04s an0 own perspective
interests. !he society nee0s to -row not 5ust any kin0 of person it nee0s a respecta/le
person i.e. a healthy person with .ualifyin- voluntary"virtuous powers assurin- his or
her a/ilities to properly live in a society followin- certain values. A chil0 that woul0
avoi0 -oin- to school on the -roun0s of protection of his or her assume0 0i-nity an0
there/y ac.uire .ualification woul0 /ecome less respecta/le a-ainst his or her will in the
future /ecause woul0 appear to /e less capa/le of performin- more complicate0 0uties
an0 therefore woul0 suit less to live normally in a society /ase0 on swap relations6 his or
her 0i-nity woul0 /e humiliate0 in much more painful ways /ecause such person woul0
fin0 less an0 less situations where he or she coul0 meanin-fully prove to others his or her
worth.
The fight of the disabled for integration into society is a fight for the right
to participate in creation of ones individuali"ed social worth )dignity*. Distinction of
two levels of human social worth eJplains one more .uestionK why are the 0isa/le0 not
content with the formal worth reco-ni8e0 in their respect seek inte-ration into society
an0 un0erstan0 it as retrieval of the a/ility to perform accessi/le 0uties an0 there/y create
their in0ivi0ual social worthF !hey un0erstan0 that social allowances 0o not create
human 0i-nity /ut only -uarantee that level of human 0i-nity NworthO that ori-inates from
reco-nition of a person as an o/5ect of law in -eneral i.e. at minimum level assures their
ri-ht to life health an0 other essential -oo0s without which a personality woul0 not eJist.
!he ri-ht to 0i-nity of a person incapa/le of performin- 0uties remains at sua/ility level
an0 may never /ecome the su/5ective ri-ht. !herefore inte-ration of the 0isa/le0 into
society is creation of con0itions for them to come /ack to swap relations /ase0 on mutual
performance of 0uties.