“What has price can be substituted by any equivalent thing, what is superior to all price and doesn't have equivalence, doesn't have price, has dignity” according to Kant being human doesn't have price and anything is equivalent to what we are. All human beigns have dignity without caring its mental state. Kant affirms that the man possesses a special dignity when, he has present a conscience of his freedom, of his anatomy and of his responsibility. This conscience forces us to be responsible with us and with the other ones and to claim responsibility of others towards one. According to Kant the dignity transforms us into people with right but also with responsibilities inside a society.
The teaching of Kant is right according to my approach, when affirming that the dignity is in all human being but that it is not the same thing in all. When a man is aware of his freedom, his dignity is different that the one that for example, a baby; since the man, when having this present he already has very clear which are his responsibilities inside a society and it is able to respond for him and for the other ones; on the other hand a baby is not able to have any type of responsibility, neither autonomy, but in all ways he has dignity because he doesn't have price and anything is equivalent to him.
My point of view apart from being sustained by that of Kant, also is sustained by the constitution or laws of most of the countries. Why can I affirm this?; each country when establishing the punishments for the break of its laws has to determine the punishment with regard to the mental development that has this person; for example if an adult commits a crime, its punishment can be jail or a fine, but if a boy or an adolescent commits the same crime, the punishment could be the jail, but is sentence will be minimum compared to the one of the adult, same with the fine, the minor even could just receive an admonishment; it could also happen that the one that breaks law has mental problems and his punishment won't be the jail but a hospital.
In conclusion the human dignity is present in all us but it is determined by the conscience that has the person of their freedom and the limits that bears this, so people that have an approach of decision enough developed are those that have a “bigger” dignity.
The teaching of Kant is right according to my approach, when affirming that the dignity is in all human being but that it is not the same thing in all. When a man is aware of his freedom, his dignity is different that the one that for example, a baby; since the man, when having this present he already has very clear which are his responsibilities inside a society and it is able to respond for him and for the other ones; on the other hand a baby is not able to have any type of responsibility, neither autonomy, but in all ways he has dignity because he doesn't have price and anything is equivalent to him.
My point of view apart from being sustained by that of Kant, also is sustained by the constitution or laws of most of the countries. Why can I affirm this?; each country when establishing the punishments for the break of its laws has to determine the punishment with regard to the mental development that has this person; for example if an adult commits a crime, its punishment can be jail or a fine, but if a boy or an adolescent commits the same crime, the punishment could be the jail, but is sentence will be minimum compared to the one of the adult, same with the fine, the minor even could just receive an admonishment; it could also happen that the one that breaks law has mental problems and his punishment won't be the jail but a hospital.
In conclusion the human dignity is present in all us but it is determined by the conscience that has the person of their freedom and the limits that bears this, so people that have an approach of decision enough developed are those that have a “bigger” dignity.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario