Research on human dignity is crucial for understanding the ethical foundations of human rights. Neglecting to address certain pitfalls in this area of research can lead to adverse effects, including the perpetuation of discrimination, the misrepresentation of dignity across different schools of thought, and the weakening of ethical standards in human rights discourse. The present study aims to identify such challenges by analytically examining outstanding research in this field. Our surveys have identified challenges and pitfalls that were categorized into two groups: challenges in the field of materials, and challenges in the field of methods. In terms of materials, researchers may fail to adequately consider the historical and cultural contexts that shape these views, while in terms of methods, they may overlook the diverse perspectives that contribute to a comprehensive understanding of dignity. Consequently, it is imperative for researchers to remain vigilant and avoid these pitfalls to ensure that their work upholds the true essence of human dignity and effectively advocates for the rights of all individuals, especially those from marginalized backgrounds.

The fundamental topic in humanities is clearly the study of humans. Neglecting the understanding and recognition of humans can hinder us from achieving generalizable results and may lead us toward arbitrary and group-based decisions. Failure to distinguish between biological species up to the point of denying the objectivity of species, conflicts between nominalists and realists, and limitations of logical definitions are problems that will be addressed in this article.In this study, it is argued that there is no universal definition for human beings as a biological species. Therefore, from a philosophical perspective, the rights and characteristics that are associated with humans in humanities cannot be attributed to human beings as a mere biological species. In an attempt to settle this issue, a minimal shared definition of “human” (as a philosophical entity) that encompasses differences and exceptions has been accepted and recognized.It is evident that an attachment cannot stand on the same level as the essence, and discussions regarding their incorporation should be considered.In this article, it has been concluded that the criteria for the philosophical human are self-awareness and freedom of choice, and offering a definition for “human” will be founded on these two features.

Although human dignity has been the focus of many researchers, fundamental debates about its existence have often been ignored. Different views on human dignity and its existence can lead to divergent interpretations of human rights. In this study, we attempted to find an answer to the question of the nature of human dignity by examining and collecting the opinions of experts and analyzing and criticizing them. Our analysis showed that since dignity is linked to human existence and understanding, it has a subjective nature. Subjective existences have different types, including contractual and abstract. Contractual existence finds its way to objective entities through human thought, and it is changeable. An abstract existence, on the other hand, is created by perception of an objective entity in a constant way among human beings. Human dignity is consistent with the contractual type, because simply seeing a human does not bring to mind the existence of dignity and human rights. Once we accept the contractual nature of dignity, we must determine who bestowed this dignity on man. Through investigations, we came to the conclusion that God is the only one that can grant such privilege, and the existence of dignity for humans is a proof of God's existence.

Human dignity is discussed in fields such as law, theology and ethics. In human rights and law, dignity is fixed and equal for everyone, but in theology, it can be different based on human actions. The highest human position is obtained through voluntary selection of goodness. However, failure to achieve this does not indicate a complete loss of dignity from a religious point of view, as there are other characteristics that can bestow dignity. The existence of these dignifying factors creates minimum and maximum degrees of dignity, the maximum being discussed in theology, and the minimum in law and human rights. The laws on compensation for harm may lead to the false conclusion that dignity can be purchased, but we must remember that dignity has two dimensions: material and spiritual. While damage to the spiritual dimension cannot be undone, “Diya” has been provided in Islam to compensate for the material dimension. This explains the difference between male and female Diya in Islamic laws. Spiritual dignity is independent of gender, but to compensate for material dignity, higher Diya has been proposed for men as they have a more prominent role in financing the family. In the end, we will discuss that due to the role changes in the society nowadays, the laws will need to be modified.