Advertisement

Understanding Human Dignity. Theoretical Groundings and Empirical Findings Among the Youth in Belarus

Chapter
Part of the Religion and Human Rights book series (REHU, volume 2)

Abstract

Together with a comparative analysis of secular and theological approaches to human dignity, this article will present evidence from empirical research on attitudes to human dignity. The first findings from the international research project ‘Religion and Human Rights’, about the attitudes of young Belarusians (N = 458) to human dignity and their predictors, will be presented – together with attempts to discover if and how the cultural, social, and religious identity of respondents affects their distinct attitudes towards human dignity. The goal of this paper is to apply the multi-dimensional scale of human dignity suggested by Lennart Nordenfelt, and to explore the differences in attitude of Belarusian youth towards the dignity of merit, the dignity of moral stature, and inherent dignity.

In this paper, we will present an analysis of the overlapping meanings of Nordenfelt’s multi-dimensional scale of human dignity, and of various approaches to the understanding of human dignity articulated in the official documents of the Russian Orthodox Church. The differences and similarities revealed in both approaches will be used for a further exploration of empirical results: to ascertain whether the position of Belarusian youth is in consensus with the convictions of the Russian Orthodox Church on human dignity.

This research is explorative in nature; it questions the relationships between religiosity, the personal characteristics of respondents and the socialising process in the family, and attitudes towards the three kinds of human dignity: dignity of merit, dignity of moral stature, and inherent dignity. We assume that empathy and authoritarianism are personal characteristics that predict the choice of attitude towards human dignity.

The survey outcomes show that the religiosity of young people in Belarus negatively influences the human dignity of moral stature; students with a greater predisposition to authoritarianism support the dignity of merit more strongly than those with a lesser predisposition to authoritarianism; and the empathy of young Belarusians (as a personal characteristic) and the religiosity of their fathers have the strongest influence on attitudes towards inherent dignity. We also want to establish whether the empirical outcomes support our assumption concerning the predictors of choice of attitude towards moral dignity, for the adherents of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC).

Keywords

Human dignity Empirical research Youth Religiosity Empathy Authoritarianism Russian Orthodox Church Belarus 

References

  1. Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other ‘authoritarian personality’. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Calhoun, C. (2005). Religion, secularism, and public reason. Comments on Helge Høibraaten’s lecture. The Holberg Prize Seminar 2005, Holberg Prize Laureate Professor Jürgen Habermas: ‘Religion in the Public Sphere’.Google Scholar
  5. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Habermas, J. (2006). Religion in the public sphere. European Journal of Philosophy, 14(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Henkin, L. (1998). Religion, religions, and human rights. The Journal of Religious Ethics, 26(2), 229–239.Google Scholar
  8. Huber, S. (2003). Zentralität und Inhalt: Ein Neues Multidimensionales Messmodell Der Religiosität. (Veröffentlichungen der Sektion Religionssoziologie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie). Opladen.Google Scholar
  9. Huber, S., & Huber, O. W. (2012). The centrality of religiosity scale (CRS). Religion, 3, 710–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kyrlezhev, A. (2007). Relationships between human rights concept and religious values. Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe, 27(1), Article 4.Google Scholar
  11. Manganelli Rattazzi, A. M., Bobbio, A., & Canova, L. (2007). A short version of the right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 1223–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nordenfelt, L. (2004). The varieties of dignity. Health Care Analysis, 12(2), 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nordenfelt, L. (Ed.). (2009). Dignity in care for older people. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Rawls, J. (1997). The idea of public reason revised. University of Chicago Law Review, 64(3), 765–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stoeckl, K. (2014). The Russian Orthodox Church and human rights. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Teymoori, A., Heydari, A., & Nasiri, H. (2014). Relationship between dimensions of religiosity, authoritarianism, and moral authority. Social Compass, 61(1), 92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Documents

  1. (2006) ‘The Declaration on Human Rights and Dignity’ adopted at the 10th World Russian People’s Council.Google Scholar
  2. (2008) ‘Russian Orthodox Church Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom, and Rights’ adopted by the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PaduaPaduaItaly
  2. 2.University of WürzburgWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations