Final, yet not so final, thoughts

Over the course of this semester I, along with my 20 classmates, dove deep into the topic of human dignity. We were forced, but rightly so, to explore theorists' perspectives of dignity, violations of human dignity, examples of dignity upheld, and many controversial situations in which the concept dignity could be applied.  We read Kant, Kateb, and Singer.  We discussed dignity as it pertains to healthcare, prison systems, and the media.  We debated over whether dignity was innate or gained or whether or not dignity could be lost or gained.  A group of my classmates underwent a project called “Post-It Proud” to improve other’s self dignity, and the rest of my class also participated in human dignity projects.  It seems a lot to do in a semester and I know I did not even mention everything out course consisted of.  I was fortunate enough to be able to participate in such empowering, fascinating, and intellectual colloquium about Human Dignity.  So what did I learn?

Most importantly I learned that dignity is dignity- no matter what situation dignity is applied to.  As the semester continued and we were asked to blog about certain issues and how dignity pertained to them I struggled with coming up with new things to write about.  I was always drawn back to the idea that every human deserves dignity.   Every human is unique and all humans should be treated equally.  I definitely think Kateb said it best when he said, “the truth of personal identity is at stake when any individual is treated as if he or she is not a human being like any other, and therefore treated as more or less human. [An individual should be treated] as if he or she is just one more human being in a species, and not, instead, a unique individual who is irreplaceable and not exchangeable for another.”  We are all unique and different and, especially when it comes to dignity, no human should be treated as any more or any less human.  Whether or not you live in a culture with unique traditions different than traditions of other cultures, whether you are a famous actor or sports figure, whether you have a mental illness or life threatening disease, whether you have money or you are struggling to find income, whether you are a prisoner or a victim of a crime- you are still a human.  You still deserve dignity.

I titled this entry final, yet not so final, thoughts because while it is technically my last blog entry for the class, there is no way these are my last thoughts regarding human dignity.  While i learned that dignity is dignity, i also learned that people's dignity is violated everyday.  Everyday people are treated as if he or she is more or less human than others.  I know I am not perfect, and I know that no one is perfect; however I also know that if we all become more conscientious in the way we treat others we could make a difference.  It may just be a little at a time, but if we developed insights and mindsets that all humans are equal and should be treated the same the world could become a more dignified place.

When I think about human dignity in any context I am always drawn back to the fact that no matter what the situation, every human deserves dignity.   All humans should be treated equally and no human should be treated as any more or any less human.  In deserving dignity and being treated equally, all people also should have equal opportunities.  This photograph that I took of my mom on the beach reminds me of human dignity because as I look at the picture I feel as though I am reminded that the world has endless opportunities.  I feel like in the picture my mom is ready to scream, "LIVE LIFE!"

Looking back at the picture I am motivated to grab hold of the opportunities presented to me and embrace life.  While it may be a stretch, this pertains to human dignity because I often get caught up in school or work and I loose sight of myself and the things that make me- well me.  One of the most important things I have learned about dignity over the course of the colloquium class is that recognizing ones' self dignity is just as important in recognizing someone else's dignity.  People need to need to embrace what makes them unique and be true to themselves.  This photograph is a reminder for me br true to myself and to take advantage of all the things the world has to offer.

America's Brutal Prison Clips

I would like to think that in a perfect criminal justice system a criminal could be both punished for his or her crime and yet have his or her dignity still upheld.  The key words: in a perfect world.  Today's society and criminal justice system is not perfect and there are flaws.  I do not believe that a criminal's dignity is upheld  in prison. 

When it comes to dignity I always try to remember that every human is a unique individual.  No matter how unique a person is, he or she is still human and all humans should be treated equal.  That is a hard concept to grasp, especially when dealing with prisoners.  A person is more than the crime he or she committed.  Regardless or whether that person was right or wrong or innocent or guilty, that person is still an individual who deserves dignity and should be treated with dignity in prison.  Not only do people deserve to have his or her dignity upheld, but Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  Why then do we still hear of horrible stories in which a criminal's dignity is stripped away?



Is using electric cattle prods on humans dignified?  Is shackling a prisoner to death dignified?  Is spraying prisoners with pepper and tear gas for banging on a door dignified?  I believe there are many factors that play into dignity in prisons.  First, there are many types of crimes with varying degrees of punishment.  There are non-violent crimes, violent crimes, crimes against other humans, crimes against society as a whole, crimes that strip away other peoples' dignity, and many more.  The point is a crime is a crime, but should all criminals be punished the same?  How can someone with a non-violent drug offense be treated the same way a someone who murdered his or her entire family? 

Not only are there a number of different crimes, but there are different criminals.  There are criminals who are remorseful, criminals who regret what he or she did, criminals who have no regrets, criminals who are not remorseful for his or her crimes, and even criminals who believe he or she is innocent.  Should they all be treated the same?  The answer is no they should not be; however, they all should be treated humanely- with dignity and respect. 

I'm sure everyone has heard the phrase, "one person can ruin it for everyone."  Not that it is that pretty common, but I feel like it is what occurs in prisons.  There are some prisoners who are well behaved in prisons and work towards a better future, but there are still other who have no desire to better their lives.  They join prison gangs, abuse other inmates, smuggle drugs into prisons, and in general just do not follow the rules.  It has to be hard for prison employees to work with all these different types of prisoners- to have to distinguish between those who are compliant and those who are non-compliant.  To have to determine who is really trying to make a better a future for ones self and who is just trying to look for an easy way out.  I feel like often times the abuse that occurs in prisons occurs because guards take the easy way out- they do not try to distinguish between those who are compliant and non-complaint.  Often times they automatically jump to extreme measures and inflict cruel punishments on prisoners- punishment that strips the criminals' dignity.  Like I said, in a perfect world I would like to see the criminal justice system uphold criminals' dignity while still punishing criminals for his or her crimes, but today's society is far from perfect.

10 Things Every Child With Autism Wishes You Knew

Since World Autism Day (April 2nd) is quickly approaching, I found it appropriate that i talk a little bit about autism in terms in human dignity. Did you know that about 1 out of ever 110 kids has autism? According to, Autism Speaks, autism is more common that childhood cancer, juvenile diabetes and pediatric AIDS combined. Austin is a broad term typically used to describe a variety of disorders formally known as Autism Spectrum Disorders. Some of the disorders grouped into this category include Pervasive Developmental Disorders (PDD), PDD-NOS (Pervasive Developmental Disorder – Not Otherwise Specified), Asperger's Syndrome, Rett Syndrome, and Childhood Disintegrative Disorder. According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, there is a variety of characteristic that children with autism may have, some of which including impaired social interaction, inability to respond to their name or make eye contact with others, engaging in repetitive movements such as rocking or twirling, and many more. I found this video called 10 Things Every Child With Autism Wishes You Knew and it speaks a little to how dignity can be linked to autism.


The part of the video that really hit me, especially in terms of dignity, was the beginning.  So many children with autism are labeled "autistic."  More importantly, the video also raises the question, "are you a person with thoughts, feelings, and many talents?"  More often than not individuals with mental illnesses are defined by those mental illnesses and not by the unique personality characteristics that make that individual a person.  People with other illnesses such as diabetes are typically not identified just for having diabetes, so why is someone with autism typically identified for having autism?  Not recognizing someone for being a person is essentially stripping away their dignity.  This kind of goes along with Kateb who, I believe, would say no one should feel as if he or she is any more or any less a person than he or she really is.  We need stop judging people for being different and instead embrace and value people for their differences, especially if that difference is a mental illness. 

I believe very strongly in organ donation.  I am an organ donor, I have convinced family members to become organ donors, and I have given a few persuasive speeches on organ donation (so hopefully I have also demonstrated the benefits of organ donation to my peers).  Typical organ donations occur once the donor has deceased; however the number of living donations that occur is increasing.  According to Donate Life America, living donors are able to donate their kidneys, a lobe of a lung, part of their liver, a piece of their pancreas, or a section of their intestine.

I believe strongly in organ donation but would I actually be able to undergo the knife to save a stranger’s life?  My immediate reaction is YES!  I am healthy, I can live a pretty normal life after the donation, so why not offer someone else a second chance at life.  It would be selfish not too, right? 

After recently reading an article titled, “The Kindest Cut” written by Larissa MacFarquhar all of my thoughts surrounding donation began to stir.  The article focused on a website, MatchingDonors.com.  MatchingDonors.com is a website that people waiting for organs can go on to post their story and see if anyone is willing to help them by donating an organ.  The article explored stories of people, often times complete strangers, who underwent a living donation.  The article also explored some of the criticisms living donors face.  You think people would be praised for donating their kidneys to strangers, but in reality, that is not always the case.  Sometimes living donors are looked down upon because other people view them as trying to play God- they are deciding who lives or dies.

What would Peter Singer say about all of this?  Well for a man who argues that peoples' surplus to essentials should be given up in an article titled, "The Singer Solution to World Poverty", I believe he would also argue that peoples' extra kidney should be donated to help decrease the number of kidney transplantation candidates on the donor list.  He argues that the money used to pay for a new car could save children's lives, so I believe he would also argue that the extra kidney in someone's body could and should be used to save others' lives. 

Now it comes down to do I agree and would I offer a kidney to someone else?  I'm contradicted.  I do agree with what I believe Singer would believe.  I do think not giving up a kidney is selfish, but that being said I do not know if I would actually be able to go through with the process.  I went on Matching Donors.com and I was overwhelmed.  Who would I pick?  What should I type in my search box?  Just because I live in Pennsylvania, should I eliminate the recipients in California?  If I did give up one of my kidneys, what should the criteria I look in the recipient be?  But most importantly, I thought of all of the lives I was not able to save.  Who am I to decide who lives and who dies?

Progress is Measured by More than Grades

One of Carlow's Core Values is Student Progress.  As defined on Carlow Univerity's website, Student Progress is to "educate, challenge, and expect all students to uncover, expand, and realize their potential."  I feel that Student Progress is one of Carlow's most important Core Values, so I chose to practice this value for a week.  I chose to pick this value because discovering myself, my potential, and what I want to do with my life is something I have been struggling with lately.

I came to Carlow knowing I wanted to be a doctor.  That passion is beginning to fade- not because I do not think I can do it, but because I fell in love with so many other things I think I want to peruse.

While practicing Student Progress I made an extra effort to really learn in my courses.  Instead of doing the bare minimum to get by, I challenged myself to really learn the information being taught to me.  For example, instead of just studying my notes, I tried to make connections between what I was learning in one course with what I was learning in another. Not that I do not think school is a priority, but I waste so much time worrying about getting good grades that sometimes I lose sight of actually learning, enjoying myself, and my life.

In addition to working a little harder when it came to school work, I tried to fully commit myself to other things I was passionate about.  For example, I love running.  I used to run at least three miles a day and I tried to run at least two 5Ks a month.  Since I have been so busy with school, I have not been able to run the way I used to.  While practicing Student Progress I thought it was important to realize that although school is a priority, it is equally important be passionate about other things.  This is why I tried to make sure I ran and studied every day.  It took a little bit of getting used to but once I managed my time a little better, I realized it was not impossible.  I think this really helped me grow and learn my potential as both a person and student. 

What does this have to do with dignity?  I think realizing one’s potential is extremely important to self dignity.  We live in such a competitive word that people are so consumed with “doing everything right” and “trying to make it” that they lose sight of themselves and the things that they enjoy.  Student Progress is an important Core Value because progressing as a student is not just important academically, but Student Progress is also about realizing one’s self potential in life. 

Upholding Human Rights

Whenever asked to explore a time in my life in which dignity was upheld or restored I immediately thought of the March for Life in Washington, DC.  I thought of the March for Life because I have been asked multiple times to participate in the walk but I have been unable to go due to prior commitments.  The March for Life is a march that begins at Mall in Washington, DC and ends at Capitol Hill.  The March was created back in late 1973 by a group of people who were prolife that wanted to remember the Supreme Court’s abortion decisions in Roe vs. Wade that took place in January of 1973 without petitioning Congress.

The first March for Life occurred on January 22, 1974 and it is believed that approximately 20,000 Americans rallied and advocated to support life.  In that same year, the March for Life became a non-profit, non-partisan, and non-sectarian organization.  Since 1974 that March has continued to grow every year.  This year, 2011, marked for the 38th March for Life.  It is estimated that over 400,000 people participated in the walk and many participants were amazed that some marchers reached the end before some even left the beginning. 

What exactly are Marchers marching for?  According to the March for Life’s website, the Life Principles were created as a way to indicate the purpose of March for Life as well as explaining the beliefs of many prolife individuals.  The Life Principles state that “we hold these truths to be self-evident: That all human beings are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which is the right to life, and therefore the right to life of each human being shall be preserved and protected by every human being in the society and by the society as a whole…from that human being's biological beginning when the Father's sperm fertilizes the Mother's ovum, and…throughout the natural continuum of that human being's life by all available ordinary means and reasonable efforts…at each stage of the life continuum to the same extent as at each and every other stage regardless of state of health or condition of dependency… regardless of state of health or condition of dependency, and when there is any doubt that there exists a human being's life to preserve and protect, such doubt shall be resolved In favor of the existence of a human being, and when two or more human beings are in a situation in which their lives are mutually endangered, all available ordinary means and reasonable efforts shall be used to preserve and protect the life of each and every human being.”  The Life Principles also suggest that human life amendment should be added to the Constitution.

This is an example of dignity being upheld because hundreds of thousands of people are marching and advocating for human life.  Supporters value life, especially the lives of those who are unborn.  Hundreds of thousands of people are fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves.  The March for Life is an example of dignity being upheld because people who march and support the March for Life are restoring the dignity of others.  Supporters believe all people are created equal, "from that human being's biological beginning when the Father's sperm fertilizes the Mother's ovum"- meaning fetuses are people too. 

Now there are many arguments for and against those who are prolife.  In my colloquium class we have explored many opinions and views of human life.  Peter Singer, one of the most influential philosophers of our time, believes that a person is not a person unless he or she can be aware of one's existence in time.  He believes that the law should support the killing of those who are not a "person."  Meaning, if a mother wanted to kill her unborn child, that unborn child is not a person anyway.  Is awareness really a valid distinction of life?  On the other hand, there is the Catholic Social Teaching which, I believe, is pretty hand and hand with the March for Life's Life Principles.  The Catholic Social Teaching states: "human dignity can be protected and a healthy community can be achieved only if human rights are protected and responsibilities are met.  Every person has a fundamental right to life."  If every person has a fundamental right to life, how can one kill a fetus in abortion- especially because, as defined in the Principles of Life, a fetus is a person?  Then there is George Kateb.  Kateb values the individuality of a person.  In Human Dignity he says, "every human is unique without trying to be, "and "I have a life to live, it is my life and no one else’s; it is my only life, let me live.  I exist and no one can take my place."  I think Kateb's opinions are really important to consider when discussing something as important as life and death- especially when it comes to abortion.  When aborting a fetus, that fetus's life is stripped away.  Someone else decided that the fetus's life was not important enough to be lived- in a sense their dignity was not even considered.  This is why the March for Life is an example of restoring dignity.  The March for Life, as I said previously, is upholding the lives of all humans, even those who are not born yet. 

The debate over human life speaks a lot about what society is like today.  There are people who fight for life and people who fight against life.  I believe the largest part of the controversy, especially when discussing abortion, is defining when life begins.  I think it is safe to safe that everyone would agree that killing another human is wrong and strips away that individual's dignity, so why would killing a fetus be any different?  Well, not everyone agrees that a fetus is a person.  The Life Principles say that life begins when an egg is fertilized; Singer believes that life does not begin at that time because the zygote is not "aware".  The problem in that is that everyone has different beliefs.  I think it would be very hard for a consensus to be reached about when life actually begins.  If it were easy, it would have already been done.  While I am not sure of how this debate will play out, I do believe that the March for Life's Life Principles offers a unique solution- to add a human life amendment to the constitution.