The greatest adversary of dignity

The greatest adversary of dignity

Dignity
/ˈdɪɡnɪti/
Noun
    1a.
    [no plural] respecting value inherent in a human being, and therefore the meaning attached to it.
    "human, personal dignity"
    1b.
    [no plural] consciousness of one's own value [and thereby determined attitude].
    "a stiff, natural dignity"

Dignity is associated with a value, directly also in relation to the human being. It is a respect granted to human existence only because of it taking place. For this, a human being does not have to have done an honorable, extraordinary deed, because it is talked about a general attribution of dignity. No dignification by demarcation, no degradation by lack of belonging.

However, this text will not be primarily about enabling dignity, it will not be a guidebook on how to treat others with dignity, and it will not be a text that seeks world peace with its conclusion. So many texts have been written and published with the purpose of converting humanity through the good faith of the author and telling them that humanity has always been within them after all. This text serves to bring out the opposite; I am not looking for what promotes dignity, I am looking for what gets in the way of it. For everyone knows that acting according to dignity in humanity would promise a utopia. But the state of our world certainly does not resemble a utopia, or you would not need to read this, since I would have no reason for this constitution. This essay is about the greatest opponent of dignity.
For many, dignity has a direct connection to peace; the protection of dignity preserves the laws. Because breaking them could be seen as a dignity violation against everyone else, because keeping the laws is largely there to protect everyone's dignity. For example, the most obvious rule of all; Refraining from physical harm to another. By keeping one's integrity intact, one's worth and therefore dignity is left untouched, untainted and intact. And even if some laws are so questionable and obviously do not allow the preservation of the dignity of everyone, it is so with the majority of laws.

But now we come back to existence; if dignity is based on existence and not on deeds or characteristics, why focus on people? The definition I used at the beginning itself speaks of the value that is "inherent in a human being," from which dignity is then drawn. Animals and plants, according to a general definition, also deserve dignity because they live in the same way. And there the word has fallen. Life. Existence finds its origin in many forms, there are different kinds of existence and life is only one of them. Existent are also objects, despite their lifelessness. And the minority would describe auras as alive, yet many are convinced of their existence. As soon as you have an idea, a theory, a concept, you talk about having "brought something into life" but that's not true; it just exists now. Humans can't handle seeing an existence without life characteristics as full-fledged. So, one problem of humanity is to limit dignity to life, exclusive of existence. This is easily observed; when a fire alarm goes off, people are advised to save themselves and leave valuables behind. With our objective conception of life, this is of course plausible; an object cannot replace or even be equal to a living human being because of our cognitive hierarchy of life and the existence below it. Existence and life thus form a class society in our brain, so to speak, which enables us to set priorities. Now one might ask; are there exceptions to this rule? There are countless cruel stories, for example one where people rescued some things from burning houses (cell phones, photos, watches...) and knowingly left other people behind. At that moment, the value, the dignity of the existing objects was more important than that of the people who were in danger. Either these people were born that way, or something happened to them in their lives that made them rely on objects and that's why they prioritize them now. So is this an indication that this hierarchy does not exist at all or does it boil down to a mistake in humanity that this person was treated this way and now acted accordingly? In addition to that, these objects were familiar to the human being. There were memories, emotional connections, values attached to them that made them seem more important. So sometimes this hierarchy can be broken by personal circumstances. So the order depends not only on the presences that live and others that exist, but also on the subjective value that we assign or that is assigned to the presences.
But what does all this mean for dignity? It is obvious which concept causes difficulties here for the assignment of the dignity. If the rule of existence would control everything and everything would run according to it, there would be no priority hierarchy in our equal existence. However, when life is in control, dignity is redistributed, from existing presences to living ones. And thus we have grasped the crux; life is the greatest adversary of dignity.

And this realization is visible not only through this abstract conception of life and existence, but through unfortunately everyday events in human life. A life is completed with full dignity only when nothing has ever happened to that person, in their entire lifetime, that is considered degrading. I would instruct you to find such a person, but it would be inhumane of me to send you on a journey that has no meaning and thus would never end. With that I would take away your dignity.
Every person has had something happen to them that has damaged their dignity. In the vast majority of cases, this comes from other people; insults, disrespect; physical and psychological violence; murder; degradation; low esteem; fraud, etc. The possibilities are unlimited; in life the possibility of degradation are unlimited, in existence they are not, because people do not exist in this form in the other forms of existence. So how could something be pro-dignity if degradation is guaranteed?
Just as other people can degrade one through harm, this can also come from oneself, one is only a human being oneself. And so the degradation motivated by dislike can happen through oneself. This also has a lot to do with the system we live in. In a society where mistakes and imperfection are not welcome, it is hard to be satisfied with one's achievements and other accomplishments. In the same way, it will be difficult to finish this text, because I will have to be satisfied with the fact that it is finished and, if its quality is not sufficient, I will not be able to excuse myself by saying that it is not finished yet. I will have to release something imperfect into a critical society. And when you hold it in your hands and read it, it will have been done.

You may ask "Then aren't humans the problem? Because plants and animals also exist in life, but they are not comparable to humans in their cruelty" And that is true; partially. The animal kingdom is built up by a superior being that leads others, eats others, takes away their dignity. For they live and life profits from the demise of other living beings. Even plants emit chemicals, for example, to secure their place in meadows. Rivalry plays a big role in degradation and rivalry has only happened to us in life. Of course, we have never existed in any other conception of existence, so we can't know for sure if objects don't act according to rivalry in their own way. But even things we interpret with rivalry and degradation is only due to our humanity and experiences. An example: You see a triangle racing towards another, smaller triangle. In the collision, the small triangle shatters. With our knowledge, our way of existence, we would speak of violence, even murder. This is high degradation for us but with non-living existences this whole concept may not exist.

One would need a translation means, in order to adjust the realities of the different existences. We don't have such a thing, unfortunately, not that we know of. This communication would go beyond our understanding of the realities and the inhabitants/occupants of them. Possibly we would not be able to decode any messages even with the translator. It is all unknown, unexplored. A great mystery. But one thing always remains with us; the duality of dignity and degradation in life. Perhaps we living ones are the only existences that had to learn to live with degradation.