From Wade Seale, Cape Town
In his column “Do liberal values represent SA?” (May 27) Mputhumi Ntabeni rightly questions the framework within which the Constitution is interpreted by the courts.
The impending national debate on assisted suicide is set to betray a number of inconsistencies in the way in which the concept of human dignity is interpreted. The inconsistencies result from the reluctance to deal with human dignity as a theological concept, which is what it is.
If human dignity was bestowed on human beings by other human beings through mechanisms like the law, then whether Person A has human dignity or not would be dependent on other human beings. And our colourful history has demonstrated to us that this is untenable.
Instead, as the Constitution states, “Everyone has inherent human dignity…”, and the right extends merely to having that dignity respected. (Talk of “the right to human dignity” is therefore coarse.) Our human dignity is pre-political. But if it is pre-political, then it means its source must be a non-human intelligence.
Christians don’t have a problem with this: we know humans have dignity not because they have capacity for reason or any other feature, but because they are created in the image and likeness of God.
But atheists reject this. And the courts essentially do too because they are reluctant to give faith systems too prominent a role in the interpretation of the Constitution, precisely because of the liberalist framework which Mr Ntabeni refers to, where human dignity takes on a pluralist guise and becomes everything and anything. Human dignity is then used to justify everything and anything.
Starting at the source, we need to have a national debate on the concept of human dignity. What exactly does human dignity entitle us to?
- Flabbergasted by a devout Holy Mass - January 30, 2024
- The Language of the Heart - August 8, 2023
- Let’s Discuss Our Church’s Bible Past - July 12, 2023
