Dignity and Honor as the Primary Value of the Individual

The individual, as the primary object of protection and inviolability of the state, is endowed with many rights in a state governed by the rule of law. One of the most important rights, which collectively covers all other legal directions, be it civil or criminal law, is the inviolable natural (and not granted/conferred) right of the individual, which is divided into two parts: dignity and honor. In some cases, both are used as a single concept in private conversations as well as in the media; however, there is a vast difference between them, and moreover, they possess separate levels of protection according to objective or subjective factors. Furthermore, first and foremost, the reality that will never change is that, apart from human beings, no one possesses these characteristics, including neither the state nor private companies, because dignity and honor cannot exist without a human being, and every human being is endowed with these rights from the moment of birth;

In its legal nature, honor means the evaluation received by the individual from society and/or social groups for actions committed or activities accomplished by them, through which the person interacts with the outside world and receives the attitude that society holds towards them. This attitude is objective; it is not what the person imagines about themselves, but what society thinks about them. To put it simply, honor means: what people think about me. This can imply a person's image—what image they present in society, or what perception of their so-called "life credo" they leave in society, and/or on what values their expressed actions are based, and that they are perceived as a representative of these values to third parties. This also includes the person's reputation, their activities, professional or personal characteristics with which they present themselves to society, and society evaluates these traits and enrolls them into its own social ranks based on these traits;

The individual, as a social phenomenon, thinks not only about what they think of themselves, but also about what others think of them. A state governed by the rule of law protects this legal reality, because the development of the individual is impossible without their recognition, which stems from their similarities. The legal purpose of honor is to protect the inviolability of the value system of the person as a social phenomenon, so that the social environment is of an adequate standard, and the individual's reputation creates a foundation for them; because civil society, governed without trust in the individuality of the individual, is doomed to dictatorship. The factor of trust towards the individual means that the individual should not fall into the hands of the state; that is, society must decide what place to assign to the person. Despite the fact that this is more closely related to public morality, honor regarding the individual must be cleared of both public and collective morality, because honor rather implies the evaluation of a person's activities based on a correct and true value system that is evaluated by society;

As for dignity, dignity is what the individual thinks about themselves, what perception they have of themselves, and they believe that this perception is their primary value system. Article 9 of the Constitution of Georgia indicates that "Human dignity is inviolable and is protected by the state." This norm is divided into two parts. The first part indicates that it is inviolable from both the state and other individuals, while its protection is carried out by the state. Because the Constitution, as a social contract between the individual and the state, causes the inadmissibility of vigilantism by the individual, in return, the state undertakes the obligation to protect the individual both from themselves and from others. The dignity of an individual also means how they imagine themselves, how society and/or the social environment perceives them—their purely subjective perception that, for example, society perceives them as a public servant fighting nepotism, and/or a civil activist fighting for human rights, and/or a professional lawyer, etc;

It is interesting and noteworthy that in the case of dignity, it does not matter whether it is confirmed by society or whether society actually thinks so; the main thing is the individual's perception of it, and this perception is their subjective view where others' directives change nothing. A person's subjective perception is more important than the existing or delayed reaction of society and/or the silence of society on this issue in general. This is important because a state governed by the rule of law, as a social unity standing on individuals, relies on individuals. Relying on individuals means that every individual has a perception of the values/ideals belonging to them by which they act, be it the refusal of corruption, or the inadmissibility of running a red traffic light, and/or simply being a "full-fledged citizen";

In a state governed by the rule of law, where the state is governed by an agreed order (laws) established by elected persons of social groups and not by the dictate of law, what should an individual be like?! The individualism of an individual can only be taken away if they base their value system on any group and/or a group of persons and/or a person. Accordingly, a state governed by the rule of law considers this perception worthy of protection even though it is subjective; it protects it from interference, and in case of interference, performs the function of restoring justice (here, to a certain extent, the responsibility rests with the individual, as they must want to protect their dignity, because the state has no right to fight for the protection of the individual's dignity in their place if the individual does not desire it). The function of restoring justice means that it must provide the individual with all possible legal levers, and the levers must be accessible. The individual must fight for this right, because a state governed by the rule of law is not a mother or a father to protect me, as an individual, out of feelings; it is a reality in a constant process of the present, which lives only if the individual fights for the expansion and protection of their own rights. If the individual does not fight for the expansion of rights, the state governed by the rule of law sooner or later devours living individuals, and the state thereafter is governed by collective morality—legally speaking: by state dictation;

Dignity and honor are rights inherent and granted to a human by virtue of their humanity, through which a human, i.e., an individual, establishes their individuality. An important provision is set by Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of December 10, 1948 (in force by the resolution of the Supreme Council of Georgia of September 15, 1991), according to which everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. There is no doubt that the freedom of labor in a broad sense is directly related to human dignity and free development (see Supreme Court of Georgia rulings No. as-549-517-2010, October 19, 2010; No. as-106-101-2014, October 2, 2014). With these decisions, the Supreme Court of Georgia also carried out an additional fulfillment of dignity from a different legal prism, specifically: dignity also covers our business or labor relations. Labor or business relations are nothing more than what we, as individuals, present before third, unknown persons; this is where the perception of us is created for ourselves and for third parties;

It is also interesting what means may exist for the restoration of damage caused in the event of an infringement of this right of the individual as a social phenomenon, known as dignity. The closest to this is probably the following interpretation by the Supreme Court: "It is indisputable that it is impossible to evaluate human life, health, honor, and dignity with money; therefore, moral damage precludes restitution. Due to this, the liability for moral damage compensation has a compensatory nature. Monetary compensation, in this case, is intended to alleviate the severe consequences for the victim to some extent, as well as for general and specific prevention. That is why, in a specific case, the volume of damage compensation should be determined not by the principle of equivalence, but based on the individual characteristics of the case, the nature of the physical and moral damage inflicted, the degree of culpability of the tortfeasor and the victim, taking into account the property status of the victim and the tortfeasor (see Supreme Court of Georgia ruling No. as-543-518-2016, December 23, 2016)";

On the one hand, there is the right of the individual to demand compensation for damages; on the other hand, even here, as an evaluator, the state offers an objective rather than a subjective factor, embodied in the judge, who, as an independent third party, is obliged to make a corresponding decision by evaluating facts, including social status. Dignity is such an all-encompassing object of legal protection that it enters as a central figure even in a crime admitted and/or confirmed by a person: "It is fundamentally wrong and cynical to assume that a society of free people can be achieved through torture, inhuman treatment, cruel and degrading punishments" (Decision of the Constitutional Court of Georgia of October 24, 2015, No. 1/4/592 in the case "Citizen of Georgia Beka Tsikarishvili vs. the Parliament of Georgia," II-20);

Dignity is the category that forms the foundation of all other rights, which is unalienable, and no justification can be found that considers it permissible for "the dignity of the individual, as the primary value, to be infringed." Dignity in a state governed by the rule of law has the main function of restraining the state. The state has no right to consider this or that dignity of an individual insignificant and/or impose any limits on them for their own thoughts/words/statements and impose an inappropriate punishment on them. "The state does not have the authority to divide opinions into 'correct' or 'incorrect', 'desirable' or 'undesirable', and other such categories." "If a person cannot say what they think, or if they are forced to say what they disagree with, this insults the foundation of human rights—their dignity";

"Respect for human dignity and personal freedom is expressed in the respect for their fundamental rights, their adequate protection, and implementation" (Decision of the Constitutional Court of Georgia of December 26, 2007, No. 1/3/407 in the case "Georgian Young Lawyers' Association and Citizen of Georgia - Ekaterine Lomtatidze vs. the Parliament of Georgia"). Even according to this interpretation, dignity is what gives the individual individualism, through which we, each individual, are special;

One could speak endlessly about dignity or honor. Dignity as a legal phenomenon allows for a broader interpretation than what we as a society have recognized today. In a society where dignity is not the primary value of the individual, the individual's dignity and/or honor are doomed in the pursuit of an illegal/authoritarian state;