Absolute human dignity was once guaranteed. Today, it is negotiable. The Brosius-Gersdorf case demonstrates this.

German lawyer Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf made headlines. She was nominated by the SPD as a judge for the Federal Constitutional Court and blocked by the conservative party, among other things because of her stance on abortion. She argues there are "good reasons" for applying the guarantee of human dignity only from birth onward.

Brosius-Gersdorf separates the concept of the right to life from human dignity: While she recognizes the unborn child's right to life, she does not consider human dignity to be necessarily valid from conception. In the final report of the "Commission on Reproductive Self-Determination" from 2024, she writes: "The assumption that human dignity applies wherever human life exists is a biological-naturalistic fallacy."

The ideological dimension at issue here has been drowned out by the partisan debate surrounding the lawyer. The "naturalistic fallacy" concerns the problem that no direct normative statement (an "ought") can be derived from an observable fact about nature (the "being"). Example: "In nature, the strongest survives. The right of the strongest can therefore be considered a social norm."

A social ethic cannot simply be constructed from the biological fact of the survival principle. In the context of human rights, one could conclude: It is not necessary to conclude from the mere existence of human life, i.e., the "being" of an embryo, that absolute human dignity should be "ought."

This line of thinking is well known in academic circles, prominently represented by Australian ethicist Peter Singer, for example. He advocates what is known as preference utilitarianism: The morally right thing to do is to choose those actions that best serve the interests of all those affected.

Singer rejects the moral superiority of human life over animal life. He postulates a three-level model of moral status. At the lowest level are beings without consciousness, at the second level are conscious sentient beings (animals or newborns), and at the third level are developed persons: This refers to living beings with self-awareness and a sense of the future, not only humans, but also apes and dolphins.

According to Singer, such living beings enjoy the highest moral protection, while the killing of beings without consciousness or a sense of the future is less problematic for the ethicist. According to Singer, even severely disabled newborns may be killed under certain circumstances. A position that sparked widespread criticism in 2015, not only from disability organizations, but also from politicians, ethicists, and theologians.

Preference utilitarianism amounts to an ethical cost-benefit analysis that determines the value of a life, measured against the interests of all. The goal is a balanced overall outcome. This contrasts with the classical idea of human dignity, which applies without preconditions and in every phase of life. This is also envisaged in natural law. This is based on the notion that certain fundamental rights exist "by nature," thus transcending the changing nature of social norms. Natural law is often referred to as "supra-positive law," which precedes written law (positive law).

During the Enlightenment, natural law served as the basis for the proclamation of universal human rights. Today, critics consider "natural" law difficult to justify. Norms and values are considered historically changeable. The claim to an absolute standard valid for all cultures seems imperialist. And indeed: Who, in a relativistic culture, can make a universal claim to which everyone is supposed to submit?

In his book "The End of the Modern Age" (1950), theologian Romano Guardini describes the connection between the biblical image of God and the development of human rights. The foundation for human dignity is God. Dignity is not a value determined by humans on a scale of other values, but rather the spiritual foundation that sustains humanity and comes from God. The rejection of the existence of God leads to the disappearance of the idea of unconditional human dignity. Without Christianity, this idea would never have developed, and it will not survive without Christianity.

That is why Guardini prophesied 75 years ago: Instead of the absolute guarantee of human dignity, there will be “value debates” in the future, until finally all values are declared to be sentimentalities and abandoned altogether.

This leads to the question of how a computing, high-tech civilization can remain humane. Either the value of life will be determined by experts in a utilitarian ethics or jurisprudence. Or, in the future, humanity will continue to believe in an absolute dignity that comes from God, so that no one has the right to make it the subject of a balancing of interests.

Politicians, media professionals, and bishops who have spoken out against Brosius-Gersdorf's appointment to the Federal Constitutional Court would be well advised to address the full scope of the case and promote the broadest possible discourse. A discourse that makes clear: This is not about left-wing or right-wing judges, or ideological or constitutional differences, but about the pre-political sphere of fundamental beliefs, about the foundation of Western civilization. This is at stake when millions of people in Europe believe that a future without Christianity will bring more freedom and tolerance—without being clear about where the absence of a divine guarantee of human dignity leads.

Bourgeois-conservative circles may pretend it's possible to cling to secularized Christianity without recourse to God, through the media's invocation of corresponding "values" or by appealing to a "C" in a party platform that has lost its religious substance. In truth, God no longer has any practical relevance for the majority of society. People live as if they were creating themselves and as if they no longer have to accept an eternal truth beyond subjective feeling and desire. Relativism and utilitarianism are then the appropriate philosophies.

It is undoubtedly true that God cannot be proven or disproven by scientific methods. However, if only that which can be empirically proven is considered rational, then the idea of a divine guarantee of human dignity becomes irrational. Enlightenment humanism, which is rooted in the Christian concept of human dignity, also becomes irrational. The ideas of posthumanism develop.

In this intellectual situation, in order not to abandon the question of God, it might be helpful to apply the legal principle "in case of doubt, for the accused." Due to the suspicion that he doesn't exist, God is in the dock of postmodern rationality. But the evidence is thin. There remains a reasonable doubt, and that, from a legal perspective, means acquittal.

God is absolved of the suspicion that he doesn't exist and is therefore irrelevant to our sense of justice. Such an acquittal could one day be of great service to society, when the cost-benefit culture has become so cold to humanity that we long for the security of an unconditional, indelible dignity.

Giuseppe Gracia is a writer and communications consultant.