Human Dignity between Science and World View

Pitanje ljudskog dostojanstva ne može se promatrati izdvojeno za sebe jer ono proizlazi iz čovjekove biti. Stoga se u ovom članku najveća pozornost posvećuje različitim mogućnostima pristupa čovjeku i problemima koji iz toga proizlaze. Nasuprot antropologiji, utemeljenoj na spoznajama dobivenima metodama prirodnih znanosti, postavlja se sintetička filozofska, koja, uz to što u sebi ujedinjuje rezultate prirodnih znanosti, prihvaća pojam stvarnosti koji prekoračuje granice empirijskoga. Pritom se polazi od čovjekova iskustva samoga sebe kao tjelesno-duhovne cjeline u kontekstu cjelokupne stvarnosti. U promišljanjima se pokazuje da je već sam način pristupa problematici uvjetovan svjetonazorom, što je u kontekstu dosegnuća prirodnih znanosti osobito vidljivo u interpretaciji dobivenih spoznaja. Nadalje, u članku se pokazuje neprihvatljivost pokušaja određivanja ljudskog dostojanstva s polazišta bilo koje ma kako bitne vlastitosti čovjeka, te potreba holističkog pristupa koji ipak neće i ne može do kraja zadovoljiti intelektualnu radoznalost i nastojanje egzaktnog objektiviranja ljudskog dostojanstva. Upravo ta nedefiniranost dostojanstva omogućuje njegovu zlouporabu. Stoga se zahtijeva priznavanje i prihvaćanje nedodirljivosti ljudskog dostojanstva u svim stadijima čovjekove dijakroničnosti kao nediskutabilnog temelja ljudskih prava. Na kraju se iznose neke od opasnosti koje proizlaze iz reducirane utilitarističke koncepcije »ljudskog dostojanstva«.The question of human dignity cannot be observed as an isolated matter because it emanates from man\u27s being. This article then gives particular attention to various ways to approach man and the problems that arise from that. Classical philosophy succumbed - unjustly in our opinion - to the ideal of science understood from the natural perspective, and in particular metaphysics including philosophical anthropology ontologically founded as far as it places man in a perceived whole and as such gives him a deeper meaning that surpasses the empirical. Did we unjustly and too quickly abandon the philosophical discussion about man embedded in transcendency — something that is not a subject of empirical-experimental science? Not one individual natural science can answer the question of what man is as a whole. It admittedly, touches upon that whole but only within the frame work of the selected method. Difficulties with the method founded on scientism are that the primate of that method discards the theoretical relevancy of science. If for instance something has scientific value only if its reaches methods of natural science then that means that the main criteria is scientific method and not theory, i. e. knowledge and truth in Aristotlel\u27s way of thought. Seeking the truth however must not be reduced to only one method because that method of science narrows reality to only one of its views and that is the physical world, i. e. matter. Empirical science researches individual contingent aspects of man as a subject, as something that can be observed, verified and registered. This method however is not sufficient to disclose man\u27s being, something that is eminently human because man\u27s being surpasses any aspect of empirical subjectivity. In contrast to anthropology founded exclusively on realisation obtained by methods of natural science synthetic philosophy is the place which integrates the results of natural science and accepts the notion of reality that overbound the borders of the empirical. This starts from man\u27s experience of himself as a bodily-spiritual whole in context of all round reality. Thoughts show that the very approach to this question is conditioned by belief which in the context of the achievements of natural science is particularly obvious in the interpretation of the realisations obtained. Furthermore the article shows the unaccpetance of attempts to determine human dignity from the starting point regardless of how eminent to the selfness of man and the need for a holistic approach which will not nor cannot completely satisfy intellectual curiosity and endeavours for exact objectivity of human dignity. It is that nondefining of dignity that enables its misuse. This then requires recognition and acceptance of the untouchable aspects of human dignity in all phases of man\u27s diachrony as an indiscussable foundation of human rights. In conclusion the article presents some of the dangers that emanate from reduced utilitaristic concepts of »human dignity«. Should undeserved inviolability and untouchability of human dignity not be accepted this could open the door to misuse and man\u27s manipulation of the economic, political and ideological purpose with the danger of totalitarianism of any provenance and of man\u27s functional reduction — it is worth as much as it fulfils the demands of the function it serves. In history reference is mode only to Fascism and Nationalism and not Communism. In the first two, human dignity was based on racial aspects and in the last, on economic aspects. Today, we can feel the tendency to accept and inspire not only that which relates to economic profit and man who does not contribute to that profit either as a consumer or producer, becomes a burden to society. Does this not in a way set the measures for human dignity? What is more dangerous is when science is compared and ranked according to profitability. There are sciences that are worth investing into and those that are not worth allocating budgetfunds to. Observed in that context of market legality who can guarantee that he who pays will not want to order a man with the dignity created according to one\u27s own interest