2.2 Good life within planetary boundaries

The study therefore develops the target perspective of a socio-ecological transformation in a way that takes up the understanding of justice and the common good³⁰ of Christian social ethics and at the same time can connect to positions that are also represented in other ethical traditions or in a similar way by the secular sustainability movement. This also forms the normative background of the SDGs:
 

The term "life worthy of a human being" needs some explanation: contrary to its common usage, it is not "only" about a human life that meets basic minimum requirements, e.g. with regard to basic biological and psychosocial needs, and thus does not violate human dignity. From a global perspective, for many people it would constitute a major step forward if this minimum understanding of a "life worthy of a human being" were fulfilled. Nevertheless, the understanding of a "life worthy of human dignity" on which this study is based is more comprehensive: It is about all people being able to live well. It is about a life that allows everyone, despite all earthly-human limitations, as much self-development as possible, participation in relationships and (decision-making) processes that are meaningful to them, as well as meaning of life.

People should be able to develop their personality in four interrelated dimensions of relationship: in the relationship to themselves, to other people, to the environment and, if they are religious, in the relationship to God. In all four relationship dimensions, people must be able to develop and contribute freely – then, they can live well. In this context, it is not only important to uphold the value of every human life, but also to discover the intrinsic value of all life: The enormous biodiversity on this planet deserves "attention filled with love and wonder" (LS 97). The beauty of creation is not exhausted in its (financial or aesthetic) use for human beings.

The normative guiding idea that people can develop in their own way in relationships and in meaningful activities and thus can live well can also be found in many other ethical positions and concepts. Examples include Aristotelian-inspired conceptions of human life as the development of human abilities, as well as modern, psychologically based concepts of a "flourishing life"³² or the philosophically and politically significant empowerment approach³³. An understanding of human rights that also encompasses political, social and cultural participation and self-realisation, or conceptions that draw on the findings of empirical happiness and satisfaction research³⁴ – they all criticise one-sided fixations, e.g. on increasing material prosperity and status.

Despite of all the differences in detail, these and other positions share the view that people generally come to the conclusion that they live well when they can develop, unfold and contribute their abilities and their personality in different relationship dimensions and can in this way create and experience sense. In this context, human beings are inseparably connected to their environment and are thus also dependent on the health of their fellow human beings and creatures, whose condition determines the possibilities and limits of their personal, social and economic life. The Corona pandemic in particular has made this painfully clear to us.

A socio-ecological transformation that, on the one hand, imposes changes and (self-)limitations on many people, but on the other hand, credibly promotes a humane life understood in this way, offers an attractive target perspective. To this end, the planetary boundaries must be respected, since their permanent transgression endangers the livelihoods of all humankind. However, if it becomes clear that it is also and ultimately possible to live well in the sense outlined within these planetary boundaries, the "where to" of the socio-ecological transformation can act as a desirable goal that initiates, strengthens and aligns processes of change.

At the same time, this goal perspective takes individual freedom and the diversity of cultural and personal ideas of a good life seriously: It is up to people to decide in which concrete direction they want to develop, how they want to cultivate relationships and participate in processes, and how they want to experience and create meaning. They should answer these questions differently, individually and within their respective social and cultural contexts.