Self‐Creation? On the Dignity of Human Beings

Abstract

It was not through biotechnological possibilities that human beings first discovered “self‐creation” as a question. Rather, the question fits into the horizon of the primordial human desire to be like God. Against this hamartiological insight, a soteriological expectation related to technology has arisen. The latter expectation must be rejected, but not in all respects. Rather, one has to stress the inventive and constructive aspect of the dignity to rule, which is implied in human linguistic reason (λογοσ). There are, however, boundaries to be perceived and to be set. This becomes evident when embryo‐consuming research is at stake. In this context, the main question is: Wherein lies human “dignity”? This is the same question as: wherein lies the “being‐as‐person”? The author sees the fewest difficulties in attributing personhood to the beginning of life, which occurs with the fusion of ovum and sperm. This attribution is not justified by the material substrate as such. Rather, it is the result of intertwining the element, namely the lump of cells, and the word of institution, which “speaks together” the lump of cells and the person: This lump of cells is a person. Human beings are honored and enabled to use this instituting word, a φυσɛι, because according to Gen 2:7 and 19f, God granted unto human beings linguistic reason (λογοσ), and thus the power to define. In this intertwining of element and instituting word lies the human dignity, which is undeservedly conferred on humans as a categorical gift. This absolute gratuity implies the unconditional acknowledgment of the dignity and the personhood of human beings—before one can speak of any characteristics or abilities. Psalm 8 underscores the elementary human dependency on unconditional acknowledgment as an inviolable person, an acknowledgment preceding all human characteristics and achievements. The psalm further intertwines this acknowledgment and the commission to rule, which is conferred on human beings, as an insoluble unity. What at first appear to be opposites is in fact a synopsis and inseparable connection of creaturely human determinations that correspond to God's simultaneously being the almighty creator and the compassionate, merciful father. By using “dignity” and “person” as critical terms of negotiation, theology can engage in a conversation with the societal and political public. In rejecting the dominant determination of the “person” as an autonomous, self‐determinately active, individual rational being, theology finds an ally in juridical thinking, which also acknowledges the dignity even of persons unable to act. Two consequences are to be drawn concerning biotechnology: perceiving the remaining dependency, vulnerability and vanity of human beings forces us to abandon illusions of “self‐creation” and immortality. Second, priorities are required that determine the goals and limits of research—especially in protecting the personal dignity of embryos—in the light of our accountability before God the creator and judge.

Harnessing the Techno-Scientific Progress of the 21st Century for the Preservation of Life

“…This leads administrators to have some spare time and go on working with other important and necessary tasks. Olive is an AI-based platform that automates several processes such as checking the eligibility of un-adjudicated medical claims, (Bayer, 2004) [15] , transferring the necessary medical data to the respective medical professionals, and so on. Olive integrates with the existing tools and software of a hospital easily, eradicating the requirement for expensive downtimes and integrations.…”

The biogenetical revolution of the Council of Europe - twenty years of the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (Oviedo Convention)

“…Along with the Kantian position, as well as that of Personalism, as presented above, there exists the possibility of a relatively simple removal of those rights to which the individual is entitled solely due to their belonging to humanity (Bayer 2004). Of course, in the case of Kantianism, especially in combination with Personalism, this operation (given the formal nature of the categorical imperative) does not reveal much to us.…”

Imaging God: A Theological Answer to the Anthropological Question?

“…It is not, then, self‐validating rule by independent human standards but is accountable and subject to the values of the divine Kingdom and indeed of the Creator‐King. Human agency is exercised and is responsible “before God” (Bayer 2004, 282; Zimmerli 1978, 36ff.). Humanity is glorified, but the glory is ours only in the context of God's relating; the immediate context for the expression (and hence also the evaluation) of human dignity is the Kingdom of God (Mays 2006, 33).…”