“Human Dignity Is Intangible” – Really?

The following text is a transcript of a speech given by Peter Hänseler on September 5, 2026, at the event “The Courage to Be Ethical” in Sirnach.

The Thirty Years' War ended in 1648. The warring parties came to realize that continuing the conflict would completely ruin Europe.

It is thanks to this painful realization that we have the fundamental principle of international law—the recognition of the sovereignty of state entities, regardless of their size or form of government. The resulting social changes—the curbing of the Church’s influence and the development and establishment of civil rights and civil society—in turn laid the foundation for an important period of development in science, art, culture, and the economy. It is to this period that we owe the philosophical insights of Immanuel Kant.

Kant's ideas on human dignity were the result of the intellectual movement of that era, which we call the Enlightenment. They would have been impossible without the painful experiences of one of the bloodiest wars in history, which had taken place 200 years earlier.

Goethe’s “Faust”, one of the most philosophically debated literary works of all time—and not just in the German-speaking world—was published at virtually the same time. When the character in the “Easter Walk” says, “Here I am human; here I am free to be.”, this brief sentence takes on a significance that extends far beyond literature.

Another 200 years later, in 2026, we will gather here to debate the philosophical core of the insights of Kant, Goethe, and others—namely, human dignity. What has changed since then? Have we made progress—epistemologically and, above all, in our lived reality—since the beginning of the 19th century?

Western societies certainly do not lack writings, explanations, books, or films—nor do they lack schools, universities, and other institutions of higher learning. Paradoxically, however, our societies still lack education, courage, and living role models. They lack intellectuals and genuine personalities—role models whose character and actions the masses can use as a guide, and indeed to draw strength from in difficult times.

Since they are virtually nonexistent, democracy is inevitably compromised. In Western society, however, democracy is exclusively understood and interpreted as a concept of party rule. The sad result: The parties control society and, consequently, themselves. No one controls the parties.

Thus, philosophical and civilizational achievements become nothing more than empty rhetoric. As long as lawmakers prioritize the interests of their patrons and political parties over their legally guaranteed freedom of conscience—and thus the will of their constituents—nothing fundamental will change in this regard.

Which brings us to the heart of today's topic—the issue that troubles many people in the face of harsh social realities: human dignity as THE foundation for all other achievements of civilization.

To understand human dignity, we need a basic understanding of good and evil—that is ethics.

The subject of ethics, in turn, is morality. Morality, for its part, determines the normative orientations—that is, the ideals, values, rules, and judgments—that guide human action.

But what do people base their values on today? Terms like “values” and “rules” have been deliberately stripped of their substance and meaning for years. The basis for human action—those much-cited values—is thus being deliberately and systematically devalued. To explain the state of today’s societies and to find a path toward their recovery, we must now go back very far in our history and dig deeper, because what was once taken for granted is no longer a given. We must return to the origins, examine human society under a microscope, effectively relive the Enlightenment from an epistemological perspective, and rethink and redefine the terms that roll off our tongues so effortlessly—values, rules, morality, dignity, decency—in order to become aware of the wrong paths we have taken and to truly awaken. In doing so, we should take Kant as our model, who said: 

“Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to make use of one’s own understanding without the guidance of another.”

Immanuel Kant, “Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?”, in: Berlinische Monatsschrift, Vol. 4, Twelfth Issue, December 1784, pp. 481–494

The Brockhaus Encyclopaedia, in its last printed edition from 2006, states:

“Human dignity is the inalienable spiritual and moral value of every human being for its own sake. It is linked (according to a formulation by the Federal Constitutional Court) to the human being’s right to social value and respect, which prohibits reducing a person to a mere object of the state or subjecting them to treatment that fundamentally calls into question their status as a subject.”

Sounds good. – The Brockhaus Encyclopaedia of that time goes on to say:

“According to Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law, human dignity is inviolable: respecting it and protecting it (against violations by others) is an obligation of all state authority. This marks a departure from the primacy of the state, placing human dignity at the pinnacle of the legal order. Inviolability means that any disregard for human dignity is impermissible. Such disregard constitutes degrading treatment of a person as a mere object.”

Brockhaus 2006

By including this statement in Article 1 of the Basic Law, the legislature deliberately sought to place human dignity above all else. Human dignity must therefore be understood as the overarching concept underlying the fundamental rights that follow. Restricting fundamental rights thus leads to the erosion or destruction of human dignity.

Kant, for his part, views the concept of dignity as an unconditional, incomparable value to which all human beings are equally entitled and which is inherent in them. In this regard, he distinguishes between inner dignity—which is based on the very fact of being human—and outer dignity—the dignity a person exhibits in their interactions with others and with society.

Professor Bielefeldt wrote in 2008:

“Because they are rooted in human dignity, human rights also hold the exceptional status of ‘inalienable’ rights.”

Heiner Bielefeldt, Human Dignity: The Foundation of Human Rights, study by the German Institute for Human Rights, Berlin, December 2008, p. 4.

What was stated in 2008 as a matter of course and without much fanfare is now generally being called into question, particularly in the West. “Indivisible” human rights—which were highly valued politically, especially during the era of systemic competition—are now being openly eroded, particularly in the West, in order to advance political goals. To some—such as the Swiss—human rights are granted, while to others—Russians, Ukrainians, Palestinians, to name just a few—they are no longer even officially denied on a political level. It has gone so far that their very humanity is being denied. Palestinians are even being declared animals, without much protest from the general public.

This reduces the idea and definition of human dignity—which has been so eloquently and prominently enshrined in all manner of charters, constitutions, and declarations—to absurdity.

Examples: 

• in Article 1 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

• in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 1

• and in virtually identical terms in the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany and in Article 7 of the Swiss Constitution.
  

This erosion of hard-won insights—both moral and substantive—would make huge headlines in the West every day if the West still took its own philosophy, legal history, and ethical and moral principles seriously.

Instead of headlines in all the major newspapers calling for protests, instead of crowds of people in the streets, and trials for ongoing violations of human dignity, this political and moral declaration of bankruptcy by the Fourth Estate isn’t even worth a passing mention on page 5. Even the cultural and historical custodians of knowledge—the intellectuals, artists, and university professors—largely barricade themselves away in their ivory towers and emerge from them only to meet with the powerful figures of the day for a chat, not to confront them with reality and hold them accountable on the basis of applicable law.

The parties that control these societies are fine with this, because they created this situation. In whose name? On whose behalf?

Human dignity is thus violated on a daily basis, in contradiction to the constitutional promises.

The 2008 study on human dignity mentioned above states elsewhere:

“Respect for human dignity is an indispensable premise of all moral and legal obligations. It therefore constitutes the rational basis of the legal system as a whole.”

Heiner Bielefeldt, Human Dignity: The Foundation of Human Rights, study by the German Institute for Human Rights, Berlin, December 2008, p. 4.

With this in mind, let’s take a look at current political documents and how they are implemented in realpolitik:

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU applies to all of its member states. Although it does not apply directly to Switzerland, Switzerland is closely tied to the EU through bilateral agreements, so the EU’s fundamental rights are indirectly of considerable significance to Switzerland.In den Artikeln 21 und 22 dieser EU-Charta heisst es:

Article 21 — Non-discrimination
1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.
2. Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.

Article 22 — Cultural, religious and linguistic diversity
The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.

Let’s turn to the realities in Western countries: 

German Chancellor Merz publicly thanked Israel for doing the “dirty work in the fight against Iran.” On June 17, 2025, speaking on German television on the sidelines of the G-7 summit in Canada, he said, verbatim:

“Ms. Zimmermann, I am grateful to you for the term ‘dirty work.’ That is the dirty work that Israel does—for all of us. We, too, are affected by this regime. This mullah regime has brought death and destruction upon the world.”

ZDF interview with Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz on June 17, 2025, on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Kananaskis (Canada). The interviewer was Diana Zimmermann, head of the ZDF studio in Berlin.

According to ZDF, Merz was “grateful for Israel’s action against Iran.”

One detail clearly illustrates the perversity and coarsening of journalistic standards: the term “dirty work” originally came from the ZDF journalist who had previously asked Merz:

“Isn't it very tempting that the Israelis are now doing the dirty work?”

Diana Zimmermann, Director of the ZDF Main Studio, June 17, 2025

The chancellor thus expressed gratitude for the violation of international law against a sovereign state, the disregard for all human rights of that country’s population, and the violation of the human dignity of its representatives, who were deliberately murdered by Germany’s partners.

In this example, we can see, almost in passing, the “normal” interplay between politics and the media that has now become commonplace in Germany.

Chancellor Merz also has no objection to Israel committing genocide in Gaza. Israel’s right to exist is important to the chancellor, as it is to the entire German government. The fact that this fuels Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians—and thus violates the EU Charter—is irrelevant.

On August 6, 2026, Polish President Nawrocki made the following remarks about Russia and its people:

“Let them kill the ‘Soviets’ right where they attacked them—that doesn’t hurt us Poles. On this issue, they can always count on our help, because whenever a Muscovite is struck, Poland comes to the rescue, even if it is not directly participating in this war. That is where Poland’s strategic interest lies.”

President Nawrocki on August 6, 2026

Everyone probably still remembers the appearance of German FAZ journalist Mertens at the press conference held on the occasion of Zelensky’s visit to Belgrade. Mertens asked Zelensky, with impunity, in the presence of the Serbian president:

“What specific steps can we take to help you kill more Russians?”

Michael Martens, Belgrade, August 8, 2026

On October 9, 2023, then-Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant stated the following when announcing the complete blockade of the Gaza Strip:

“We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”

Yoav Gallant, October 9, 2023

These words do not cause any outcry in Germany. To this day, the West refuses to even criticize these statements. What's more, Israel is supported in everything it does.

Israeli Police Minister Ben Gvir is calling for the killing of 30 to 40 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Every day. And killings are taking place. In Gaza, in Lebanon, in the West Bank. 

Has there been any criticism, let alone protest, from the EU—which prides itself on fundamental rights? Sanctions? No, but plenty of military aid and political support.

These few examples show that human rights are deliberately divided—even selectively applied—in the West. For some, they apply; for others, they are not only publicly questioned but are flatly denied to those affected.

This has happened before in Europe. Selection. Back then, it took place on the ramp, in Auschwitz and elsewhere. Jews, Russians, Ukrainians—all “Soviets”—to the left; the others to the right.

Because of their history, Jews in Germany are now the recipients of special state support. This does not apply to other nations mentioned that have suffered no less.

Russians are the Jews of the modern era. They are generally subject to unequal treatment. There is no longer any trace of the “values” of the EU Charter or national laws.

This breach of civilizational norms applies to bank accounts, visa issues, participation in sporting and cultural events, and treatment as a nation within international organizations such as the OSCE, the Olympic Committee, the Council of Europe, etc. If a drone crashes anywhere in Western Europe, it was “the Russians.” If guns are found in the woods, it was “the Russians.” If Ukraine sends drones over Poland and the Baltic states toward Russia and they’re detected over those countries, then Ukraine or the Baltic states aren’t responsible—no, it was “the Russians.” It was also “the Russians” who, from 2014 –2015, by their very presence in the Donbas, had enraged the Ukrainians—who were born there—to such an extent that the Nazi Ukrainian government, installed by the West in a coup, saw no other option than to send planes and tanks and kill as many of the Ukrainian Russians as possible in order to bring these Ukrainian Russians to their senses.

Meanwhile, this unequal treatment, this selection—this quasi-screening—also applies to people who advocate for normal relations with Russia or who simply describe the world as it is, rather than through the lens of those in power. Examples? Jacques Baud, Thomas Röper, Alina Lipp, and many more. Not to mention the refusal to even communicate with Russian embassies. This goes so far as to deny Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov overflight rights.

Just as in the 1930s and 1940s, people in Western society are mere spectators to this selection on the ramp. And just as back then, protest is minimal; in fact, there is support for this kind of “civilized treatment” in significant segments of Western society.

As already mentioned, the media are the main driving force behind this policy. Surprisingly, public broadcasters play a much more prominent role in whipping up sentiment than private ones. They support genocide and the condemnation of entire peoples. The murder of Palestinians is practically being talked into existence. A glaring example of this is the Swiss magazine "Weltwoche", published by former SVP National Council member Roger Köppel. For him, there “can never be enough Israel” in the Middle East outside of Israel, and he forbids calling anything genocide. International law, human dignity, human rights—so what? - siehe "In the Service of Genocide and War Crimes—Switzerland’s “Weltwoche” Has Lost Its Way"

The circle is complete. The first sentence of my lecture referred to one of the great turning points in history. It cost Europe 30–50 percent of its population to realize that a new era was dawning.

Today, too, humanity as a whole stands at the threshold of a new phase. The risks of this development are difficult to foresee. What is foreseeable, however, is this: the era of unchecked development based on the Western model has run its course. If humanity—and Europe in particular—does not want to lose a large part or all of itself once again, it must find ways to achieve a peaceful transition to this new, impending era of multipolarity. Should it fail to do so, Kant is dead, and it is to be feared that Europe will be thrown back to 1618—the beginning of a new, protracted, and bloody war.