Those Who Believe in the Inviolable Dignity of Human Beings Must Unite!

Modernity has long been described not only as “Eurocentric” but also as “anthropocentric”—human-centered. This characterization stems from its focus on human intellect and labor, its discourse on human rights, freedoms, and democracy, as well as the ways science and technology have eased human life, improved health, and extended life expectancy. The anthropocentric nature of modernity was treated almost as an axiom within academia and intellectual circles.However, when I look at what has unfolded over the past two or three decades, I can no longer accept the idea that modernity is a truly human-centered civilization, as it was once thought to be. On the contrary, I believe that what appeared to be anthropocentrism was limited to a particular phase, and in the final analysis, modernity reveals itself to be fundamentally anti-human in nature. The techno-mediated world—especially the transformations brought by information technologies and artificial intelligence—is increasingly confirming this thesis. Bit by bit, we are witnessing a world in which human beings are being equated with other living creatures and robots, and where life itself is being reduced to the logic of computer games.

Ever since I became aware of this, I have been striving to emphasize that our objection to modernity must begin precisely at this point: by restoring dignity to the human being and to human existence, and by once again raising high the banner of what I call “the inviolable sanctity of the human being.” If we fail to do this, I believe that under the guise of promoting human welfare and easing life, we will continue to witness the devaluation of our very humanity—a humanity that we have already long surrendered to the technological mindset of engineers. And under the so-called “triumph of reason,” we will find ourselves facing the end of a moral and virtuous world, along with the collapse of the natural world and the realm of living beings as we know them.

The inviolable dignity of the human being and the irreducible nature of human ontology must form the foundation of a spiritual resistance to the world we live in. Any attempt to eliminate human honor and dignity must be vehemently opposed and resisted. Despite the increasingly frequent efforts to undermine human worth and nobility, we must persist in affirming the sanctity of the human being. If we fail to do so, humanity’s millennia-long struggle will have been in vain. Fundamental concepts such as “human rights,” “justice,” “law,” and “rights” will be discarded. Inevitably, we will find ourselves in a world where the powerful dominate everything—and worse, where they seek to reshape our very minds, unleashing upon us all forms of digital technologies, artificial intelligence, and robotics for that very purpose.

A Philosopher to Begin With: Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant is an especially fitting figure to begin with—particularly when it comes to defending humanity, or more precisely, to explaining to a Westerner why we must defend the human being. Like us, Kant envisioned modernity as a civilization worthy of human dignity, and he firmly advocated for morality, spirituality, and moderation to remain central to that vision.

According to Kant, the order of nature symbolized by “the starry sky above us” had its counterpart within us: the moral law. While he regarded Newton’s law of gravitation as “the highest law of nature,” Kant believed that all moral imperatives could be unified under a single supreme command: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” With this general law in hand, it became possible to evaluate whether any action in life was morally permissible or not.

Kant compared the moral law to the laws of nature, but he understood that it could not be grasped through the senses or by the criterion of causality. This is because the human being is a free and volitional (will-bearing) creature. Our needs and desires may be governed externally by the laws of nature, but our will is autonomous—capable of self-governance. A human being is free; it is up to the individual whether or not to obey the law. While the moral law persistently calls us to align with it in order to realize “the highest good” (summum bonum), the aspects of our being shaped by nature constantly push us toward rebellion. Our impulses, desires, and needs seek satisfaction—and we seek happiness through their fulfillment. Yet the moral imperative within us commands that we desire for others what we desire for ourselves, and that we do not separate happiness from virtue. The true aim that will bring human beings the highest form of happiness is to strive continually to remain within the bounds of morality.

A human being is aware of their own freedom, but this awareness does not arise from the senses—it comes from within, just like the moral law, from a realm that transcends the causality of nature. Freedom and morality are inextricably linked; they ground and validate one another. Freedom is not randomness or arbitrariness—it is the act of conforming to law. We know we are free because of the presence of the moral law within us. Conversely, if we were not free, the moral law within us would be meaningless. According to Kant, who upheld these views, the human being, by virtue of will and freedom, is a distinct kind of being—one connected to eternity and to the Creator. Every free and volitional human being is dignified and worthy of respect, not necessarily because of their actions, but simply by virtue of being human, as the bearer of both humanity and the sacred.

Human Dignity

Kant maintained that our moral behavior attains perfection through religion, and that moral obligations find important support in religious belief, whose purpose is to cultivate morality within human beings. Nevertheless, in his view, morality ultimately arises from practical reason and is possible even in the absence of religion. This perspective is not one that a Muslim can fully embrace. Still, it is worth noting the similarities between Kant’s moral framework, as we have summarized it here, and the principles derived from the beliefs that permeate Muslim culture. For instance, does his universal moral law not immediately call to mind the hadith, “Do not do unto others what you would not want done to yourself”?
Likewise, it would hardly be an exaggeration to say that when a Muslim encounters Kant’s moral philosophy, certain hadiths spontaneously resonate in their mind—such as: “Every child is born in a state of fitrah (innate purity),” “Adopt the character of Allah,” and “Islam is good character.” One of the most significant points of intersection between Kant’s moral philosophy and the Islamic worldview is his concept of human dignity (insan haysiyeti).

According to Muslims, human dignity is directly tied to the concept of human nobility (karāmah), and this nobility is explicitly affirmed in the Qur’an: “Indeed, We have honored the children of Adam. We carried them on land and sea, provided them with good and pure sustenance, and preferred them greatly over many of those We created” (al-Isrā’, 17:70). To be noble (mukarram) means to serve as God’s vicegerent (khalīfah) on Earth (al-Baqarah, 2:30); to exist for the purpose of cultivating and developing the earth (Hūd, 11:61); to be the being created “by the hand of God” (Ṣād, 38:75), and to reflect—most perfectly—the totality of His Divine Names (al-Asmā’ al-Ḥusnā). It means to bear the tremendous burden that neither the heavens nor the earth could carry—to bear the Divine Trust (amānah) (al-Aḥzāb, 33:72). It also means that everything in the heavens and the earth has been given to the human being as a form of divine mercy and has been made subservient to them (al-Jāthiyah, 45:13). It means attaining the mystery of Aḥsan al-Taqwīm—“the best of forms” (al-Tīn, 95:4). And it means to be the being whom God created from clay and honored by breathing into him from His own spirit (al-Ḥijr, 15:29; al-Sajdah, 32:9).

According to Prof. Dr. H. Kamil Yılmaz, to be noble (mukarram) means living in harmony with all people in society, without distinction of race, religion, language, or gender. It means speaking kindly to everyone and treating others with courtesy and respect. It means bonding with others through love and brotherhood and putting an end to hostility. It means never seeing the human being—whom God has honored—as inferior, worthless, or dishonorable. All of this is certainly true; however, one essential addition must be made: In order to truly be the bearer of the Divine Trust (amānah) and the vicegerent (khalīfah) on Earth, the human being is also obligated to protect all living beings and nature—not only as one protects human brothers and sisters, but in fact even more so. Even more so, because all humans are made of the same essence and endowed with the same mission. Therefore, while recognizing human dignity and respecting this mission may be sufficient in itself, we are, in truth, directly responsible for other creatures, animals, and the balance of nature.

Kant’s concept of “human dignity” had a profound impact on legal philosophy and later became a foundational principle for many modern constitutions. Today, numerous nations are governed under these constitutions; on the surface, this perspective appears to be in force, and decisions are ostensibly made in accordance with it. However, as I have tried to emphasize throughout, with the advent of what is now called the “posthuman” era, we have come to the end of this road. At present, there exists a de facto anti-human reality, and I fear this condition may soon become de jure as well. We must become aware of this shift and recognize the traps being laid against the dignity of the human being. Is it not so? Are we not witnessing the devaluation of humanity being disguised behind notions such as “love of nature,” “love of animals,” or even “the rights of inanimate objects”? As if it were not modernity itself that has brought nature to this state—and as if the noble human being, who was entrusted with this divine responsibility, were somehow not already capable of the highest form of love?

While defending the nobility (karāmah) of the human being, there are other fundamental principles that must necessarily accompany this effort. Let us attempt to list them:

1. One dimension of human dignity and irreducible ontology is the ability to view nature and the cosmos through the same lens. “Every human is a universe,” and each individual is a microcosmic image of the cosmos. In other words, we must preserve the perspective that “the human is a small cosmos, and the cosmos is a great human.” This requires an appreciation of the benefits of science and technology, while also resisting the ontological destruction that technology increasingly brings. At times, we must be able to say “stop” to the trajectory of technology, which is progressively operating against ontology. A “heart-centered reason” (aql al-qalb) that places ontology above technology must be activated in all realms of life—especially in academia and politics.
2. Concepts that have been devalued for not being “scientific,” such as the “heart” and “thinking with the heart,” must be revived as essential elements of traditional worldviews. Likewise, morality and virtue—which form the foundation of traditional human relationships but have been reduced to the field of academic ethics and stripped of their societal role—must be reasserted as universal and ontological truths, not merely historical constructs. We must insist everywhere that morality is not a human invention, but a foundational element of human existence—something that may even precede ontology or walk hand in hand with it.
3. It must be emphasized that the human being is ultimately a “transcendental” and “religious being” (homo religiosus). At the same time, we must reject the false opposition between science and religion, between faith and reason. Science is the most reliable method for uncovering truth through reason, but faith is also a constituent of truth.

[*] Taken from the Epilogue of Erol Göka’s book Seeking the Possibility of Hope (Umuda İmkân Aramak, Kapı Yayınları).