In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

3 ”The Minimum Necessities of Life” Material Dignity Law is a practical enterprise: it deals with a real problem in real people’s lives. It is not enough in law to recognize the inherent dignity of every human being. That only matters if each person is in fact living a life with dignity, where his or her individuality and autonomy are valued in conjunction with everyone else’s. For most of the world’s people, of course, the capacity to chart one’s own life course is limited by circumstances. People who are poor, who are infirm, who are dependent on others for their well-being are restricted in how effectively they can write their own rules. At the extreme, we might think, with Christoph Möllers, that “human dignity expresses the prohibition to reduce those who have been recognized in this way to their body.”1 To reduce one to one’s body—whether by torture , extreme poverty, or other degradation—is to compel a person to focus only on fulfilling his or her bodily needs. From a dignity perspective, this has several significant implications. Because we are more similar in our bodies (all having like needs for food, water, medical care, shelter, etc.) than in our minds, reducing one to one’s body erodes the value of individuation that dignity seeks to protect. Extreme deprivation can also impair a person’s ability to plan his or her life course. And of course, in most societies, not everyone is equally deprived; there are always some who are living comfortably and in control of their destinies, usually at the expense of those who live at the margins. At a social level, Möllers argues, reducing one to one’s body also diminishes the “integrity of the political community.” This realization indicates the complexity of the modern understanding of human dignity. The conception of dignity that comes from the UDHR and its ”The Minimum Necessities of Life” 55 progeny in national constitutions is centered on the concept of immanence: the recognition of the inherent dignity of each member of the human family. This suggests, too, the immutability of human dignity; it attaches simply by virtue of our humanity, and it is with us from birth (or before) until death (or after). But the course of people’s lives tells a different story: although each baby may have this inherent quality, many people struggle to live in conditions of dignity, to maintain their dignity throughout life. A reversal of fortune that renders a person homeless or a refugee, an arrest or detention, or inability to find work that is not exploitative may make it difficult for a person to maintain his or her dignity. This aspect of dignity may be lost or gained, perhaps many times during the course of a person’s life. It is not enough to have dignity as a birthright; it is necessary, also, to live in dignity. Governmental authorities, including courts, must be ever vigilant to foster and preserve the conditions in which dignity thrives. As long as people live together in society, dignity requires sustenance of the social structure. Some constitutions explicitly protect the right to sufficient means to live in dignity. Finland’s constitution provides that “Those who cannot obtain the means necessary for a life of dignity have the right to receive indispensable subsistence and care.”2 Many similar provisions are said to derive from the Weimar Constitution of 1919, which established that “The organization of economic life must conform to the principles of justice to the end that all may be guaranteed a decent standard of living” or Menschenwürdigen, often translated as “dignity.”3 Where the constitutions are not so explicit, many courts have nonetheless developed a jurisprudence of the social welfare of human dignity. Typical is the assertion of the Constitutional Court of Hungary that “the [constitutional] right to social security . . . entails the obligation of the State to secure a minimum livelihood through all of the welfare benefits necessary for the realisation of the right to human dignity.”4 The Material-Autonomy Continuum Like Germany with its abortion decisions, India has linked dignity to the constitutionally protected right to life. In India, however, the right to life is not a state of being, but an agglomeration of situations and conditions to be experienced , which collectively or separately may enhance or diminish human dignity. The Indian Supreme Court has repeatedly insisted that the right to life includes the right to live with...

Share