> You have inherent worth by virtue of being a human being. Do you feel that's up for debate?
Of course it's up for debate. Debate is what gave the notion of "inherent worth"[1] intellectual and popular credence in the first place. You forget that human beings were historically categorized according to a chain of being with the clergy and royalty (rather conveniently) at the top. One's worth to $DEITY and the world was determined by the height of the seat one sat on. This arrangement of affairs was treated as an unquestionable given for thousands of years in civilizations across the world. To suggest otherwise would have been treated as insanity or denounced as heresy.
The existence of Inherent worth thrives upon the fact that those who debate it depend on it. To suggest it's beyond questioning turns the idea into an article of faith.
> Are cultures that decide you have no worth as a human being based on your skin color, or religion, or caste, or last name, equal to those that don't?
Until midway through the 20th century in certain parts of the world, this was accepted as fact. In other parts of the world, such as sub-Saharan Africa of all places, it's still the case today.
[1] A more rigorous term for what you're referring to is self-sovereignty. Strictly speaking, the term "inherent worth" is a contradiction in terms.
You're right, I wasn't as articulate as I could have been, when I say "not up for debate" I mean that in an ontological sense (not in the religious meaning), human beings have worth because they are human. It's not based on religion, or race, and it's not granted by any government or organization.
It of course can be debated and @rayiner is doing a good job debating it, but IMO the worth of any individual human being is as factual and certain as 1+1=2. I'm happy to debate it but you have a hill to climb if you want to change my mind.
I think one issue is that a person can affirm people have “inherent worth” and yet disagree with the conclusions you draw from it; others may question the notion of “inherent worth” yet agree with what you view as its consequences on other grounds.
e.g. many conservative religious people might agree that everyone has “inherent worth” given by God, yet disagree that implies a right to free speech, if one understands that right as including speech they view as immoral (e.g. blasphemy, pornography). Some religious people might even argue that (from their viewpoint) immoral speech inherently harms the human dignity of those who produce and consume it, and hence prohibiting that production and consumption respects their inherent worth rather than violating it
Whereas, conversely, other people might question the meaningfulness of “inherent worth” on philosophical grounds (e.g. from a positivist perspective it is rather dubious-it isn’t something you can empirically measure and it is unclear how to define it in the language of natural science), yet simultaneously favour the policies (e.g. expansive free speech rights) you seek to ground on it for other reasons-e.g. a person might support expansive free speech rights, even while rejecting the idea of “inherent worth”, simply because they find personal enjoyment in that right’s exercise
> You're right, I wasn't as articulate as I could have been, when I say "not up for debate" I mean that in an ontological sense (not in the religious meaning), human beings have worth because they are human. It's not based on religion, or race, and it's not granted by any government or organization.
Of course it's up for debate. Debate is what gave the notion of "inherent worth"[1] intellectual and popular credence in the first place. You forget that human beings were historically categorized according to a chain of being with the clergy and royalty (rather conveniently) at the top. One's worth to $DEITY and the world was determined by the height of the seat one sat on. This arrangement of affairs was treated as an unquestionable given for thousands of years in civilizations across the world. To suggest otherwise would have been treated as insanity or denounced as heresy.
The existence of Inherent worth thrives upon the fact that those who debate it depend on it. To suggest it's beyond questioning turns the idea into an article of faith.
> Are cultures that decide you have no worth as a human being based on your skin color, or religion, or caste, or last name, equal to those that don't?
Until midway through the 20th century in certain parts of the world, this was accepted as fact. In other parts of the world, such as sub-Saharan Africa of all places, it's still the case today.
[1] A more rigorous term for what you're referring to is self-sovereignty. Strictly speaking, the term "inherent worth" is a contradiction in terms.