BYU professor speaks to UN about peace, human dignity

[Calm]

This may turn instantly political…not even sure how to avoid it except perhaps try to discuss in generic terms.  I don’t personally care if it does go political as always curious about people’s views, but board rules and all.

So please pause and think about your post and ask yourself “is there something I need to delete or phrase differently to stay in line with board rules” before hitting the submit button.

————

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2026/03/14/peace-faith-un-byu/ (not using the quote box here so the bold, which I believe is an essential observation, can be easily seen)

“For the past decade, BYU’s center has been focused on the idea of human dignity in international policy. One of its major projects is the “Punta del Este Declaration on Human Dignity for Everyone Everywhere,” a document intended to establish a global framework for protecting human dignity. The effort has also included a proposal to create a United Nations “Human Dignity Day,” envisioned as a complement to Human Rights Day, observed annually on Dec. 10.

An important partner in this work has been Muhammadou Kah, Gambian ambassador to Geneva and an academic, who had invited Scharffs to Geneva. 

In front of representatives from nearly half of the world’s countries, Scharffs spoke about the role human dignity plays in building a “culture of peace,” engaging with religious actors and confronting the main obstacle to peace: “people or interests who do not want peace.” [******]

He also quoted President Russell M. Nelson, late president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who called on church members to be peacemakers in the world.”

Do religious leaders often get quoted at these kinds of things?  I admit to squirming a bit when I heard the intro to the quote as it suddenly turned into a conference talk for me.

excerpts:

I love, love, love what he says about human dignity.  It resonates with me much more than “human rights” do.

Quote

My view is that human dignity is so fundamental to human rights, that if we don’t include human dignity in our discussions of human rights, we’re going to lose a lot of people. 

In a lot of places in the world here — I’m thinking of Muslim societies, places in the global south, including Africa, Asia, including parts of Latin America — human dignity resonates much more robustly than human rights does. 

There are places in the world where human rights feel much more like a Western concept, whereas human dignity feels much more Indigenous, much more like a concept which comes out of the people’s own traditions. 

For example, human rights is not a concept that we find even in the Hebrew Bible. But the idea of the dignity of a humankind we find in the creation of men and women in the image of God, for example. 

We’ve been working on projects on Islamic conceptions of human dignity, African conceptions of human dignity, Indigenous concepts of human dignity.

What we find when we broaden the conversation and strive to listen to voices that are often neglected is that these voices have really interesting things to say about human dignity, and they’re often a little different than the Western ways of thinking about dignity. 

Western conceptions of dignity are really dominated by the tradition that flows from Immanuel Kant, which is a very abstract and philosophical concept of dignity, which is really individualistic.

Whereas when you get conceptions of dignity that come out of other cultures, they’re often much more communitarian and they’re often much more rooted in lived life, in the soil of life. 

They often also include the concern for the afterlife, the dignity and respect for the dead. Our project is not trying to find a single imperial definition of dignity. We’re trying to broaden the voices that we listen to and enrich our understanding of human dignity. 

I think that human rights and human dignity are like hand in glove. I don’t think you can really separate one from the other.

Interesting subtopic of AI:

Quote

What it does is it helps us stay focused on what really matters. So it becomes a focusing mechanism that helps us stay rooted. Human dignity is the single most important benchmark for helping us differentiate between uses of artificial intelligence that should be encouraged, and those that should be discouraged.

Back to the bold:

Quote

What we need are leaders who want peace. It’s a really obvious and painful reality, which is that the biggest obstacle to peace is powerful leaders and powerful interests that don’t want peace.

What are these interests? President Harry Truman called the military industrial complex as he was leaving office in the 1950s — which are powerful companies that make money building armaments. We have economic interests that are interested in war rather than peace. 

Leaders often want to address grievances, territory. Often, they want national honor or the glory of an earlier age restored. Sometimes they want their own survival, whether political or just life itself.

But when you’re dealing with that type of leader, you have to understand what you’re facing and try to address that in a realistic way.

I think this should be at the beginning of any politica discussion or maybe even anything that involves a debate, contrary opinions and ideas:

Quote

We probably ought to begin with the presumption that our opponents have a form of rationality that we can try to understand and appeal to, and they also have a moral sense that we can try to understand and appeal to.

Video of part of his talk, if someone has a more complete one, please post:

 

******Amen, amen, amen, amen, amen, amen, amen, amen

Edited March 24 by Calm

[Calm]

The video shows up on my iPad, but not on my phone. If you want to view the video, which is worth it, imo, even if he doesn’t have the best delivery, do a search on ‘Brent Scharffs, byu professor, speaks at UN’.  Probably could leave out the byu part.

[manol]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

In front of representatives from nearly half of the world’s countries, Scharffs spoke about the role human dignity plays in building a “culture of peace,” engaging with religious actors and confronting the main obstacle to peace: “people or interests who do not want peace.” 

[again quoting Brent Scharffs] "Leaders often want to address grievances..."

This is probably wishful thinking:  "And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start to mold a new reality closer to the heart."  - Rush

Well, maybe it can start with us as individuals.  Maybe we'll begin to recognize that we cannot simultaneously be in a state of grievance and a state of peace.  Maybe we can deliberately and consistently choose peace over our grievances, whether or not our grievances are "justified".   Maybe we can decide that treasuring our grievances is no longer worth the cost. 

I think that would be okay with Christ.

[Calm]

I think it needs to start with individuals who are willing to look at themselves as not the center of the world. 

World peace won’t happen until the men who push the buttons, send the planes and bombs and orders to kill either aren’t in power or have their hearts changed, imo. 

But we can have pockets of peace and maybe even the majority of the world could have peace if intelligent people are at the helm of countries where people have a vote, leaders who actually know how different economies and cultures/communities work or trust people who do and how to work with those who are different than them towards mutual goals and are willing to do so. 

[The Nehor]

I find the divide between human dignity and human rights as kind of silly. Yeah, a lot of people throughout history have put human dignity on a pedestal. The problem is that when we read that from them it sounds very nice until you realize that it is a bunch of the elites writing to other literate people (other elites) about how their dignity matters. The subsistence farmers…..meh, not so much. Most cultures that hold up human dignity are also parochial about it. Those jerks over the hill that steal our sheep don’t get human dignity acknowledged.

Give me human rights with laws and norms that defend them over a more idealistic belief in dignity any day.

6 hours ago, manol said:

This is probably wishful thinking:  "And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start to mold a new reality closer to the heart."  - Rush

Well, maybe it can start with us as individuals.  Maybe we'll begin to recognize that we cannot simultaneously be in a state of grievance and a state of peace.  Maybe we can deliberately and consistently choose peace over our grievances, whether or not our grievances are "justified".   Maybe we can decide that treasuring our grievances is no longer worth the cost. 

That sounds nice but taken too far and it is a call for the victim to put up with the bully to ensure peace.

It can be the kind of ‘negative peace’ that MLK described:

Quote

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

 

6 hours ago, Calm said:

I think it needs to start with individuals who are willing to look at themselves as not the center of the world. 

World peace won’t happen until the men who push the buttons, send the planes and bombs and orders to kill either aren’t in power or have their hearts changed, imo. 

But we can have pockets of peace and maybe even the majority of the world could have peace if intelligent people are at the helm of countries where people have a vote, leaders who actually know how different economies and cultures/communities work or trust people who do and how to work with those who are different than them towards mutual goals and are willing to do so. 

We are living in a unique time. International warfare has ceased to be economically productive. We live in a time called “the long peace”. We haven’t seen a serious war between major peer powers since World War 2. When we fight now it is because we choose to. It is no longer for gain. It might be for national pride or revanchism or the even more vile attempts to distract a populace from the actions of a failing regime and using conflict to silence dissent.

I don’t believe that leaders are worse people than those that vote for them. When those who vote for them tolerate evil and justify it and defend it they aren’t any better than the leader directing it.

 

I want to believe the solution to a lot of conflict is education. A real understanding of history and how nations and politics and economics work. I regularly see people being cheered for spewing total nonsense. Reminds me of the scriptural warnings about how many people will love a false prophet who will tell people what they want to hear. People can’t crave to be lied to and then expect competent leadership.

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

want to believe the solution to a lot of conflict is education. A real understanding of history and how nations and politics and economics work.

Me too.  There is a problem of who is going to be able to ensure the youth are taught what is needed to be taught though.

Quote

Reminds me of the scriptural warnings about how many people will love a false prophet who will tell people what they want to hear. 

There are some things common between us and the distant past.  Apparently telling people what they want to hear is an age old manipulation technique.

Edited March 25 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

International warfare has ceased to be economically productive.

Avoiding loss of money is a big motivator just as gaining money is.  I wonder how long it will take for more economical measures of competition/conquest and punishment to replace war all together.  The habit of war seems embedded in some mentalities.

Edited March 25 by Calm

[manol]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That sounds nice but taken too far and it is a call for the victim to put up with the bully to ensure peace.

Yes good intentions can be harmful when applied lazily.  I see this laziness in feel-good "zero tolerance" school policies that punish those who stand up to bullies.  We are called to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves", and putting up with the bully's behavior is neither. 

One might ask, how would we treat someone we deeply love who is being a bully?  The answer obviously involves correction and is probably complicated and depends on the specifics, but imo this principle applies: 

"Hatred ceases not by hatred, but only by love".  - the Buddha

Edited March 25 by manol

[Tony uk]

Until we all learn to live in peace with each other, and overcome issues through dialogue, and patience. Unfortunately, imo, as the status quo exists, there will always be force used as a way of enforcing a view. Those in position of responsibility need to accept there are better ways for making change, than by using force