In 1974, world-renowned philosopher Robert Nozick posed a question: Suppose the government offers you the option to plug yourself into a tank that will stimulate your brain so you feel happy indefinitely. Would you choose to plug in and float in a tank forever, or remain in the imperfect real world?
As humans, we are programmed to achieve one biological goal to ensure the continuation of our species: survival. Now, someone on the verge of death may plug themselves in without a doubt, but others who are living comfortably may see no reason to lose their lived freedom in exchange for simulated perfection. However, if our goal is survival, and the tank provides a safe environment to accomplish it, why doesn’t everyone opt to plug in?
I argue that our refusal to enter Nozick’s tank reveals a deeper truth that human beings do not live for survival, even though science tells us that we do. We instead embrace a higher standard in life: human dignity. Human dignity preserves humanity by allowing people to see themselves as more than just biological creatures struggling to survive.
Before diving into theories of human dignity, I want to highlight the story of Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor and author of the memoir “Night.” In his work, Wiesel reflects on the experiences he endured at the Nazi concentration camps. In the camps, the prisoners were starved, humiliated, and stripped of any sort of pleasure or comfort, making life unbearable. Furthermore, Wiesel suggests such conditions stripped people of their humanity by describing how prisoners willingly stole food from each other, fought, and even killed each other to survive. Such an example demonstrates that the pursuit of survival alone does not preserve one’s sense of self or understanding of right and wrong. One of the greatest challenges for Holocaust victims was not the struggle to remain alive, but rather the far greater struggle to remain human in the midst of such degradation.
Wiesel suggests that, amid suffering, many Jewish prisoners retained their humanity by discovering a deeper meaning and purpose in their plight. For him, that purpose became the obligation to remember, to testify, and to resist evil by sharing his story. But to many of us, finding meaning and purpose in life sounds rather hard. What is this “meaning” that allowed individuals to endure such conditions without sacrificing their humanity? I argue that this “meaning” he tells us to find is, quite literally, human dignity.
The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity defines human dignity as the recognition that human beings possess a special value intrinsic to their humanity and, as such, are worthy of respect simply because they are human beings. I believe the intrinsic value is tied to each person’s uniqueness. Every human has distinct traits and characteristics that make them different from everyone else, and their self-recognition of that uniqueness allows them to retain their humanity under extreme pressure and give their lives meaning. More simply, human dignity is the idea that every person has value because of the unique traits and thoughts they contribute to the world that no one else can.
Human dignity is expressed in the ways we insist on being uniquely ourselves. Sometimes that expression is creative: a person chooses music or art as a career even when it offers little financial security. Sometimes it is moral: a refusal to betray one’s principles even under extreme pressure. Sometimes it is refusal: the quiet act of drawing a line and saying, “This is not who I am or what I stand for.” And sometimes it is simply narrative: the ability to interpret one’s own life and voice one’s own ideas without letting institutions or society define it.
Morality, defined simply as the distinction between right and wrong, is quite vague in the fact that there is no universal standard for what is considered “right” and what is considered “wrong.” Human dignity gives morality meaning by grounding its definition in a person’s sense of identity. When individuals recognize their own uniqueness, they develop personal values and moral standards that reflect who they believe themselves to be. These standards are not imposed by external authorities such as governments or institutions, but instead emerge from an individual’s understanding of their own character and experiences. As a result, people begin to judge their actions not only by whether they are beneficial to survival, but also by whether those actions remain consistent with what they believe to be moral.
In the concentration camps Wiesel describes, survival often encouraged brutal behavior. Prisoners stole food from one another, betrayed fellow inmates, and abandoned moral responsibility in their desperate attempts to stay alive. Yet some individuals resisted these impulses because they refused to abandon the identities that gave their lives meaning. Wiesel and others continued to see themselves as fathers, witnesses, believers, and moral individuals. Their sense of dignity placed limits on what they were willing to do, even in circumstances where their lives were at stake. In this way, human dignity preserves humanity by reminding individuals that they are more than mere organisms struggling to survive: they are unique persons whose choices must remain consistent with who they believe themselves to be.
These insights bring us back to our original question about Nozick’s tank. Although the tank offers everything that we biologically desire, many of us refuse to enter it because a life within the tank would strip away our human dignity. As humans, we live for more than survival. We live to be human.
Featured Image Source: Shutterstock