Response to Ranganathan
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 14760343 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Glenn Hughes (corresponding author) |
| Year | 2014 |
| Volume | 42 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 776-782 |
| Publication date | 2014-12-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Religious Ethics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0384-9694 • E-ISSN: 1467-9795 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/jore.12082 |
| OpenAlex | W1951762303 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 3 |
This essay responds to B harat R anganathan's “Comment” on my essay, “The Concept of Dignity in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (2011). Addressing key criticisms in this “Comment,” I make the following points. First, neither the idea of inherent dignity being “imparted” to humans, nor the Universal Declaration's implication—through its use of terms such as “inherent” and “inalienable”—that humans participate in transcendent reality, necessarily presuppose a Christian metaphysics. Second, a concept such as “inherent dignity” must be affirmed to be intrinsically heuristic unless we are to assume that its meaning can be completely known within the conditions of existence; but this affirmation does not render such concepts “indeterminate of sense.” Finally, Ranganathan's distinction between“weak” and “strong” senses of transcendence is untenable. If human truths beyond all contingencies are knowable (“weak” transcendence), then there must be a real dimension of meaning that transcends all contingencies (“strong” transcendence)
Declaration · Dignity · Dimension (graph theory · Epistemology · Meaning (existential · Metaphysics · Political science · Transcendence (philosophy · Law · Mathematics · Patient Dignity and Privacy · Philosophy · Political Philosophy and Ethics · Political Theology and Sovereignty
| Citations per year | 0.33 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2023 - 2023 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |