Contemplating on human dignity: who counts as human?

IF 0.9 Q3 MEDICAL ETHICS
Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-19 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.18502/jmehm.v17i5.17104
Seyed Abdosaleh Jafari, Nafiseh Tavasoli, Hanieh Tavasoli, Soheil Abedi, Ahmad Fayaz Bakhsh, Behin Araminia
{"title":"Contemplating on human dignity: who counts as human?","authors":"Seyed Abdosaleh Jafari, Nafiseh Tavasoli, Hanieh Tavasoli, Soheil Abedi, Ahmad Fayaz Bakhsh, Behin Araminia","doi":"10.18502/jmehm.v17i5.17104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The fundamental topic in humanities is clearly the study of humans. Neglecting the understanding and recognition of humans can hinder us from achieving generalizable results and may lead us toward arbitrary and group-based decisions. Failure to distinguish between biological species up to the point of denying the objectivity of species, conflicts between nominalists and realists, and limitations of logical definitions are problems that will be addressed in this article. In this study, it is argued that there is no universal definition for human beings as a biological species. Therefore, from a philosophical perspective, the rights and characteristics that are associated with humans in humanities cannot be attributed to human beings as a mere biological species. In an attempt to settle this issue, a minimal shared definition of \"human\" (as a philosophical entity) that encompasses differences and exceptions has been accepted and recognized. It is evident that an attachment cannot stand on the same level as the essence, and discussions regarding their incorporation should be considered. In this article, it has been concluded that the criteria for the philosophical human are self-awareness and freedom of choice, and offering a definition for \"human\" will be founded on these two features.</p>","PeriodicalId":45276,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine","volume":"17 ","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12091075/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/jmehm.v17i5.17104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The fundamental topic in humanities is clearly the study of humans. Neglecting the understanding and recognition of humans can hinder us from achieving generalizable results and may lead us toward arbitrary and group-based decisions. Failure to distinguish between biological species up to the point of denying the objectivity of species, conflicts between nominalists and realists, and limitations of logical definitions are problems that will be addressed in this article. In this study, it is argued that there is no universal definition for human beings as a biological species. Therefore, from a philosophical perspective, the rights and characteristics that are associated with humans in humanities cannot be attributed to human beings as a mere biological species. In an attempt to settle this issue, a minimal shared definition of "human" (as a philosophical entity) that encompasses differences and exceptions has been accepted and recognized. It is evident that an attachment cannot stand on the same level as the essence, and discussions regarding their incorporation should be considered. In this article, it has been concluded that the criteria for the philosophical human are self-awareness and freedom of choice, and offering a definition for "human" will be founded on these two features.

思考人的尊严:谁算人?
人文学科的基本主题显然是对人类的研究。忽视对人类的理解和认识可能会阻碍我们获得可概括的结果,并可能导致我们做出武断和基于群体的决定。未能区分生物物种直至否认物种的客观性,唯名论和实在论之间的冲突,以及逻辑定义的局限性是本文将讨论的问题。在这项研究中,它认为人类作为一个生物物种没有一个普遍的定义。因此,从哲学的角度来看,人文学科中与人相关的权利和特征不能仅仅归于作为生物物种的人。为了解决这个问题,“人”(作为一个哲学实体)的最低限度的共同定义已被接受和承认,其中包括差异和例外。显然,附着物不能与本质站在同一水平上,应该考虑将其纳入讨论。本文认为,哲学人的标准是自我意识和选择自由,对“人”的定义将建立在这两个特征的基础上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
23 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信