What Is a Humane Keeping of Humans?

The question sounds provocative, perhaps even cynical. Yet, it opens up a profound philosophical perspective. If we naturally speak of the humane keeping of animals—ensuring they are treated in a way that aligns with their natural needs, behavioral patterns, and living conditions—why is it so difficult for us to apply the same question to humans?

The starting point of this reflection is a reversal of one of the oldest philosophical problems: the so-called is-ought problem. In its classical form, it asks how one can derive what ought to be from what is. We turn this perspective around: It is not the “ought” that arises from the “is,” but the “is” that arises from the “ought.” More concretely: Humans exist because they were wanted—not in a metaphysical but in a thoroughly interpersonal sense. Whoever is born was, at least at a crucial moment, wanted. Existence is therefore not purely accidental but fundamentally affirmed. It bears a trace of intention, a “you ought to be.”

This preceding “ought” is not a moral appeal but an ontological prerequisite. It does not explain existence but gives it meaning. And from this meaning arises a responsibility: not as an external law but as a conditional necessity. If a person’s life is an expression of being wanted, it follows that this life must also be shaped in a way that honors this origin.

This is where the idea of “humane keeping” comes into play. For animals, we mean an environment that does not suppress but unfolds their abilities, needs, and behaviors. Why not also for humans? What kind of environment allows humans to live as humans—not just biologically but emotionally, intellectually, and socially?

A humane keeping of humans would mean:

• Social inclusion instead of isolation,
• Recognition and resonance instead of indifference,
• Space for self-realization instead of mere functionality,
• Protection from alienation and systemic over-structuring,
• Time and space for searching for meaning, for play, for doubt, and for hope.

It would not be a technical or hygienic ideal but an expression of respect for humans in their becoming. Anyone who asks this question perceives humans not as a means but as an end—not as a resource but as beings with an inherent claim to dignity.

“I am because I was wanted”—this simple reversal leads to an entire ethics and perhaps a yardstick for our society: How humane is our treatment of ourselves?