1. Human life is possible only through the medium of a body. It is self-evident. Human bodily life is considered the most fundamental good of humans, since it is only in and through the body that a human can exist and act. However, a mere bodily existence of a human life need not make humans valuable or inviolable, because it is not just only humans but all animals exist only through their bodies.
2. Can we recognize a value in humans based on mere existence? In other words, can we move from ontology to morality or from the descriptive to the normative? If the inviolable right to life is the starting point, then we end up in a naturalistic fallacy of transferring an ontological (Sein) status to the moral (Sollen) status (is-ought problem). Mere existence does not automatically transfer a moral value to humans.
3. To avoid this problem (I exist, therefore I am valuable), we need to establish a value in humans in order to respect and protect them against any harm (for example, killing). The question of whether “the mere existence demands a value” or “certain value renders human rights starting with the right to life” is answered in saying that it is a moral value that makes them valuable or inviolable or claim for protection.