I raise this example because many have noted with alarm the rise of contemptuous language in our politics and social lives, including by people occupying some of our government’s highest offices. The widespread use of social media has contributed to this behavior, and we have already witnessed an uptick in political violence committed by those fueled by contempt, resentment, and rage. These trends call out for a response.

One attempt to address this problem, housed at the University of Utah’s Kem C. Gardner Institute for Public Policy, is the Dignity Index. Developed by Timothy Shriver and Tom Rosshirt, the Index rates speech on an 8-point scale in terms of the degree to which it expresses contempt towards others (1-4) or promotes and respects their dignity (5-8). Having attended the group’s inaugural Dignity Leadership Summit, I find that the Index is a well-conceived, conceptually sound tool that can be used to help educate people about the different ways we express contempt or respect towards others and about the importance of the latter when engaging in dialogue and debate.

Because of my experience, I was interested to see that both the Utah County Republican Party and Jamie Renda and Corinne Johnson — the presidents of Path Forward Utah and Utah Parents United, respectively — have spoken out against the Index, the former in a formal resolution and the latter in a coauthored editorial published in this paper. I would like to address both, as I find that they are based on questionable claims about the nature of dignity and make unsupported claims on how the Index might be used or what effects its use might cause.

The most surprising claim appears in the resolution, which twice refers to “subjective notions of ‘dignity’.” While it is true that not everyone agrees on the term’s definition, the people at the Dignity Index explicitly adopt the Christian understanding of the term, which asserts the inherent value of each individual, an understanding that I presume all of the Index’s critics share. So perhaps what the critics mean is that what counts as a violation of dignity is subjective? This seems unlikely. The scholarly literature on dignity universally accepts that actions (including speech) that express contempt and serve to degrade or demean others violate dignity. So perhaps what they mean is that what counts as degrading or demeaning is subjective? Again, this is unlikely. Calling someone a cockroach (or “dog” or “piggy”) with a tone of contempt is degrading and demeaning, full stop.

So perhaps the critics mean that the Index’s scale is subjective? When developing qualitative measures, like degrees of contempt, those creating the scale need to exercise discretion. But I find the Index’s scale well-conceived, and as none of the critics has provided any concrete examples of where it has gone astray, I can only invite readers to examine it themselves to judge its plausibility. Now, Renda and Johnson suggest it is subjective because it is based on how it “makes someone feel in the moment,” but nothing could be further from the truth. The Index rates contemptuous language from mocking a person’s beliefs/competence/performance (4) to attacking their character (3), to accusing them of being evil (2), to dehumanizing the person and justifying violence against them (1). The feelings of the person attacked have nothing to do with it.

The remaining objections concern nefarious uses and outcomes the critics fear the Index might lead to, from censorship to outsourcing moral development, from muzzling the ability to critique others’ ideas to reducing people to numbers. All these fears are misplaced. Much has been written about how, for example, calling a reporter “piggy” is degrading, yet no one has called for censorship of persons using such language, and it’s far from clear why assigning a number to this insult would lead to such a call. And notice that it’s the words, not the person, that are assigned a rating. As a professor of moral philosophy, I find the distinctions drawn in the Index useful and plan to use them in my own teaching to help students appreciate the various levels of contempt (or respect) that our language can express. Far from “outsourcing” moral development, the Index promises to be a useful tool to advance moral education.

Finally, notice how this discussion over the Index has modeled precisely the principles it seeks to promote. Neither the resolution nor the editorial — not to mention this response to both — mocks others’ ideas or the people believing them. It does not accuse others of evil intentions, and it certainly doesn’t call for violence. Yet, strong, robust debate has occurred. I would like to think that those at the Index would rate the discussion an 8.

Dr. Robert Fudge is Professor of Philosophy at Weber State University. His current research project is a book manuscript entitled Dignity and Degradation. The views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent the institutional values or positions of the university.