(Commonweal. Gilbert Meilaender).
In the process of preparing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations in 1948, UNESCO convened a committee of philosophers to examine the theoretical basis for universal claims about human dignity and rights. Although able to agree on many particular claims, the philosophers could not agree on “why” those claims were true. That is, they could not develop any shared vision of human nature or the human person on which such claims could be based. Jacques Maritain, one of the participating philosophers, later recounted that “at one of the meetings of a UNESCO National Commission where human rights were being discussed, someone expressed astonishment that certain champions of violently opposed ideologies had agreed on a list of those rights. ‘Yes,’ they said, ‘we agree about the rights but on condition that no one asks us why.’” Though clearly humorous, that acknowledgment seems in some ways more straightforward and believable (to me) than Dignitas Infinita’s claim that a belief in the infinite dignity of every person “is fully recognizable even by reason alone,” though the Church “reiterates and confirms” this belief (1). Perhaps in principle the dignity of every person could be realized by reason alone, but not in the world we actually inhabit. It should be no surprise, then, if other parts of the document leave us wanting more.