Regular Article Views on ‘human dignity’ in the Netherlands J. Arie Biemond a,* , Job van Exel a,b,c a Erasmus Economics & Theology Institute, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands b Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, the Netherlands c Erasmus Centre for Health Economics Rotterdam (EsCHER), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands A R T I C L E INFO Keywords: Human dignity Relationships Self-determination ABSTRACT This paper examines the interpretation of ‘human dignity’ in ordinary speech. Human dignity is often employed as an argument in public ethical debates, regularly even by proponents and opponents of an issue. This suggests that the interpretation of the concept may differ greatly between people. To understand how people interpret the term, we conducted interviews using the Q-methodology, a mixed methods approach for investigating subjective matters systematically. We explored the views on human dignity of a broad cross-section of society, consisting of 29 purposively selected persons, in the Netherlands. They were asked to rank 35 aspects according to their importance for a dignified life and, subsequently, to explain their ranking of the items. The analysis revealed six distinct lay views on ‘human dignity’ in ordinary speech, in which a dignified life corresponds with either ‘enjoyment’, ‘untroubled living’, ‘self-determination’, ‘self-actualization’, trust in God’ or ’relationships’. In the light of this broad spectrum of lay views on the meaning of a dignified life, inspired by a wide array of philo- sophical and theological thought, it is advisable to always clarify what is meant when someone makes an appeal to human dignity in a public debate. 1. Introduction ‘Human dignity’ is often deployed as an important value in the public debate on ethical issues. An appeal to human dignity is widely used as the ultimate argument to approve or disapprove of a particular devel- opment. Remarkably, both proponents and opponents of certain de- velopments invoke human dignity. For example, this happens in the debate on euthanasia and that on abortion (see e.g. Calkhoven, 2011; Truijens, 2011; Van der Aa, 2021). In a less polarized debate like the one on economic ethics, human dignity plays an important role as well (Blomme, 2017; Dierksmeier, 2011; Sayer, 2007) Given that both pro- ponents and opponents of euthanasia, for example, invoke human dig- nity, both camps appear to harbour a different understanding of the concept. This leads to a confused and unfruitful debate. It is therefore essential to clearly understand and distinguish the differing in- terpretations of human dignity. The concept of human dignity has a long intellectual history (for an extensive overview, see e.g. Rosen, 2012; Düwell et al., 2014). Many philosophers have devoted themselves to the study of human dignity. One of the first accounts of dignity of the human being can be found in Cicero (1967). The idea of dignity was further developed by Christian thinkers like Augustine (2002), Lactantius, 1871 and Gregory of Nyssa (1893). They formulated the idea that the human being is created in the image of God, the imago Dei. This provided the basis for a universal interpretation of human dignity that is shared by everyone, without exception. According to them, the imago Dei is expressed in human ra- tionality, morality and the human place in the cosmic order. Renais- sance philosophers focused the philosophical attention again on human dignity. Pico della Mirandola, for instance, emphasized the importance of human moral freedom for dignity in his famous Oratio de hominis dignitate (Pico della Mirandola, 2008), in which he coined the phrase ‘human dignity’. Modern philosophers, however, have questioned the existence of a special human dignity, for instance Hume (1985, 81–86). Darwin as well does not support the idea at all (Darwin, 1871, 226). Nevertheless, the modern denial of human dignity inspired Kant to provide a secular foundation of dignity in human morality (Kant, 1906, 79) which continues to inspire philosophers and other scholars alike. This short intellectual history shows both a general agreement on the importance of human dignity as well as a disagreement over its precise meaning and scope. The thought about human dignity thus contains both generally shared notions and strongly contested ideas. Conse- quently, we cannot assume the existence of one universal interpretation * Corresponding author. Erasmus Institute for Business Economics (EIBE), Room M5Van der Goot building), P.O. box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail addresses: biemond@ese.eur.nl (J.A. Biemond), vanexel@eshpm.eur.nl (J. van Exel). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Social Sciences & Humanities Open journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/social-sciences-and-humanities-open https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101645 Received 21 January 2025; Received in revised form 3 June 2025; Accepted 3 June 2025 Social Sciences & Humanities Open 11 (2025) 101645 Available online 11 June 2025 2590-2911/© 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).