humanity.md 1.6 KB
Recently there have been calls for those who resist the suggestion that they oblige in their immunological duties to relinquish their place and be cast out from society. That they are not treating fellow members of society with dignity, and placing its most vulnerable at unnecessary risk. That, as science and technology have evolved, access to the body must be given, without question, and that those who might otherwise resist such demands must be silent. That is, those who participate in society must take certain steps ensure that it exists and continues to perpetuate, that these steps are self-evident and that there is no room for discussion.
But society is not a space of dignity which can or cannot be occupied by humans. What is dignified are the transactions between its members, and choosing to exclude others from such a space is no dignified act.
But these demands are placed over matters of contention, at a time when consequential matters of contention are increasingly commonplace.
The matters are complex enough such that the actions predicated upon them should not be concluded in the simplest terms and without patience to disambiguate?
Should there be no regard for the nuance of perspectives which culminated into contention?
No society can remain dignified while also allowing for such behaviour to become more commonplace. A failing society will choose courses of action that decrease in dignity. Though technology and a buffer of resources might bring about the appearance of a society in its most dignified form, if the potential for resolving contention within participants is eroding, then dignity will die, and humanity along with it.