Promoting the Dignity of the Human Person: A Critique of Liberalism and an Appeal for Virtuous Liberality

Jt Pinna

Something quoted often in the international religious freedom (IRF) policy space is the rise of religious persecution since the ratification of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. I speak and write with specificity about the business of IRF, and how it undermines the intended purpose and impact on those in need. There is another aspect that undermines the IRF movement and others like it.

In the political sphere, the dignity of the human person is often aligned with liberalism as the champion of human rights, upon closer scrutiny, the tenets of liberalism intersect and conflict with a more philosophical approach encompassing charity, magnanimity, and the essence of humanity itself. The face of human dignity is not homogeneity, but diversity, acknowledging the rich tapestry of human experiences. It is a perspective that doesn't attempt to iron out differences but embraces them as part of our shared experience. It's not just about promoting freedom or rights but fostering an environment of respect for the human person in their entirety, celebrating their uniqueness, and accommodating their frailties. At present, liberalism in practice lacks the ability to foster that environment of diversity.

Three significant political philosophers, John Rawls, Martha Nussbaum, and Thomas Pogge, provide compelling justifications for true liberality promoting dignity of the human person through embracing the full diversity of humans. Rawls, in his seminal work, "A Theory of Justice," proposes the idea of a 'veil of ignorance,' arguing that a just society is one that if we didn't know where we'd end up in it, we would still deem it fair. This principle embodies the thought that we should treat others with dignity, understanding that their vulnerabilities could easily be our own.

Nussbaum, with her capabilities approach, elucidates that true liberality is about ensuring all individuals can function in ways that reflect their idea of a good life. It means providing the opportunity for all, especially the most vulnerable, to achieve their potential.

Pogge, in turn, emphasizes the shared global responsibility for the systemic injustices that produce poverty and inequality. His work implicates that privileging the majority, often at the expense of the most vulnerable, lacks true liberality.

What can be gleaned from these philosophies is a similar core, which is one that all people have the right to a good, fair, and equitable life. Liberalism in action presents itself as a partisan ideology supporting the dignity of some but still neglecting the dignity of others, particularly those who may hold opinions in opposition to the liberal perspectives.

Comparing political philosophy to that of religion, it is clear that the dignity of the human person from the perspective of the three Abrahamic faiths - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - is central. Judaism imparts the belief that every person is created "b'tselem Elohim" or in the image of God, demanding respect for every individual. Christianity teaches the principle of "Imago Dei," affirming that all humans are created in God's image and likeness, meriting unconditional respect. In Islam, the concept of 'karamah' underscores that every human has innate dignity, for they are the best of creation, and should be treated as such.

Whether in political philosophy or religion, there is a clear sentiment that every human person is imbued with dignity and are deserving of respect. But when examining historical and contemporary cases, such as the treatment of American natives, the Kalasha people in Pakistan, and Tibetans in China, the ramifications of ideology and reality in conflict are clear. Each of these populations faced, and continues to face, systemic injustices under the purported guise of liberalism. The Native Americans were displaced and marginalized in the pursuit of Manifest Destiny, a dark spot in the tapestry of American liberalism. The Kalasha people, a religious and ethnic minority in Pakistan, constantly grapple with forced conversions and cultural erosion in a society that does not fully embrace their differences. The Tibetans, meanwhile, confront systematic cultural assimilation and restrictions on religious freedom in China.

These examples, far from the idealistic image of liberalism, underscore the urgent need to shift towards a society characterized by greater liberality. The guiding principle should be a genuine respect for the dignity of the human person, acceptance of human differences, and an understanding, compassionate approach to human frailty. After all, the measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable. A truly liberal society must espouse not just the rights of the majority, but the dignity, uniqueness, and inherent worth of every individual, irrespective of their circumstances. Only then can we create a world that is not only tolerant but nurturing and supportive of the rich, multifaceted human experience.