Limits and Consequences of a Consistent Global Ethics
Introduction: The Challenge of a Universal Ethics
In an increasingly interconnected and conflict-driven world, the question of a universal ethics is becoming ever more pressing. It must not remain a mere moral ideal but must be robust, applicable, and sustainable—even under the most extreme conditions of human actions. The claim of global ethics lies not only in its validity for all but also in its ability to meet every individual—regardless of their situation, culture, or mental condition. Yet, this very claim reveals the weaknesses of many traditional ethical frameworks.
The Danger of Simplified Imperatives
Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative—”Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law”—appears at first glance to be universally applicable. Yet its form remains abstract, rationalistic, and presupposes a completely judging reason. It excludes individuals who, due to extreme psychological situations, trauma, or self-deprecating patterns, are unable to form coherent maxims.
The same applies to the “Golden Rule”: “Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.” But what if someone wishes to be treated poorly? The rule collapses. Subjective ideas, however well-intentioned, cannot provide a universal foundation.
The Right to Exist as a Universal Basis
What all humans share is not their morality, will, or reason—but their existence. Whoever lives, is. And whoever is, has the right to be. This right to existence—not imposed but recognized—is the indisputable foundation of a sustainable global ethics. It eludes subjective approval, transcends cultural differences, and remains even if the individual denies their own existence.
A global ethics based on the right to existence acknowledges: Every person carries dignity, even if they do not feel it. And for this very reason, it must be protected by others. This does not make such an ethics authoritarian but responsible.
Thinking of Humanity – Expanding Responsibility
An ethics that takes the right to existence seriously does not end with the individual. It considers humanity as a whole. Whoever acts, never acts only for themselves—but always within a larger context. The reduced liberalism that presented self-interest as the common good (cf. Adam Smith’s invisible hand) falls short.
What is needed is an ethics of expanded self-interest: Every person remains responsible for themselves—but with full awareness that they are part of a global community. This creates a new maxim: Act in such a way that your actions do not endanger the existence rights of others—not even indirectly, structurally, or through omission.
The Case of the Aggressor: Why Defense Is Not a Contradiction
A global ethos must hold even where it is threatened. What happens when a person pursues maxims that negate the lives and dignity of others? May they still invoke their own right to existence?
The answer is: Yes—but not without limits. The right to existence is not a license for destruction. Those who systematically threaten the existence rights of others lose not their dignity but the claim that their actions should remain unimpeded. Thus, defense is possible—and necessary. Not as revenge but as protection of what stands above all: life itself.
The treatment of prisoners of war illustrates this idea in practice. Even those who have killed retain their dignity. But those who intend to kill may be stopped. The death penalty, on the other hand, would violate this fundamental norm: It makes life a disposable matter again.
Protecting the Foundation of Life as an Ethical Necessity
Taking the right to existence seriously also requires respecting the conditions that make existence possible. The Earth is not a backdrop but a prerequisite. A consistent global ethics must therefore also include the environment.
It is not enough to avoid direct harm to individuals—it must also prevent the destruction of their basis for existence. Environmental ethics is not an extension but a part of existential ethics: Whoever lives needs Earth, water, air, and social conditions to live. These too are bearers of responsibility.
Conclusion: Global Ethics as the Practice of Unconditionality
A consistent global ethics is not a moral utopia. It is the structural answer to the question of how we can exist together. Whoever exists has the right to be—and simultaneously bears responsibility for ensuring that this right also exists for others.
The right to existence is not a pious wish but the last remaining foundation in a world that has lost all other certainties. Whoever recognizes it sees themselves in all others—and begins to treat humanity not as an ideal but as a reality.
This is the practice of unconditionality. And perhaps the beginning of everything.
