Regarding the "inhumane"...

[Ana the Ist]

So...I had a thought the other day that I'd like to flesh out here and see what everyone thinks. It's regarding our usage of the word "inhumane". I think that it's largely wrong and perhaps even a bit narcissistic...

The general definition of inhumane, which I'm sure is what most people think of upon hearing/reading the word, is as follows...

"not kind or gentle to people or animals : not humane"

I'm not too keen on definitions which include the root word, so here's the definition of "humane"...

": marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals."

It seems rather obvious, but for the purposes of what I'm about to propose, the etymology of the word "humane" is important here...

"mid-15c., a parallel variant of human (adj.), with a form and stress that perhaps suggest a stronger association with Latin humanus than with Old French humain. Human and humane were used interchangeably in the senses "pertaining to a human being" and "having qualities befitting human beings" (c. 1500). The latter at first meant "courteous, friendly, civil, obliging," then "marked by tenderness, compassion, and a disposition to kindly treat others" (c. 1600). By early 18c. the words had differentiated in spelling and accent and humane took the "kind" sense.

So in a sense...we're speaking of cruelty when we speak of what is "inhumane". When we speak of what is "humane"...we're talking about kindness, compassion, civility, etc. This apparently is a result of what we've decided it is to be human....and which actions we see as inhuman.

What am I getting at? Well, since when has it been "inhuman" to be cruel? The capacity to be cruel, or an act of cruelty, is indeed as much an aspect of humanity as is an act of kindness. Indeed, when looking back upon the history of humanity...I think the tendency may be to notice the acts of cruelty of man to his fellow man. This may be a part of our evolutionary development in noticing the negative (as a means of survival)...yet when we choose to characterize ourselves in our language, it's the exact opposite. We vainly decide that the cruel side of our nature is somehow inhuman, something monstrous, and the compassionate side of our nature is what is distinctly human.

Is this the truth though? Or is it a lie we tell ourselves to avoid the uncomfortable truth that both our cruelty and kindness are equally genuine aspects of our humanity?

Thoughts?

 

[TastyWallet]

You've made some interesting points for me to think about. What I am about to say stems from a Christian worldview, and I do realize you are from an Atheistic worldview, so feel free to take what I say with a grain of salt.

First, I agree with you that both cruelty and kindness are genuine aspects of our humanity. They make up part of who we are as humans.

Second, if what you say is true about the word "humane" is true, that is, it used to be interchangeable with the word "human", then I am afraid that the definition has changed. That's not surprising, as definitions change all the time! "Gay" used to mean happy, but now it's homosexual. "Unicorn" used to mean any creature with a single horn, and now it refers to the mythical horse-like creature. Humane's definition is now specific to animals, which may or may not include ourselves, depending on your beliefs about humans.

Third, just because cruelty is a genuine aspect of our humanity does not automatically make cruelty right. Jesus taught that we ought to love our neighbors as ourselves. As a Christian, I take that commandment very seriously. When we are cruel, we are not showing love to our neighbor, and we see the result of it.

Finally, when we show kindness and compassion towards other people, we are showing love towards them. When we resist our animal-like instincts to do what is right, there is a word for this: it's called civilization. C.S. Lewis, in his book "Mere Christianity" put it this way:

"You will probably feel two desires - one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the keyboard and not another, is itself one the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play; our instincts are merely the keys."

He goes onto say that there are really no "good" or "bad" impulses, just like there are no "good" or "bad" notes on a keyboard. On a keyboard, what makes the notes "good" or "bad" depends entirely on the sheet of music. A note is good in one instance, but bad in another. His point is that this Moral Law ought to direct our impulses.

Once again, this all comes from a Christian worldview, so feel free to take the meat and throw away the bones!

 

[quatona]

I think it´s pretty simple: "Human" describes what we are. "Humane" describes what we aspire to be.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think it´s pretty simple: "Human" describes what we are. "Humane" describes what we aspire to be.

It could be...but I didn't find anything in my exhaustive 3 minute research into the etymology to suggest that lol. It seemed more to me a reflection of what we want to believe in as an aspect of humanity...and what we want to deny is an aspect of humanity.

 

[quatona]

It could be...but I didn't find anything in my exhaustive 3 minute research into the etymology to suggest that lol. It seemed more to me a reflection of what we want to believe in as an aspect of humanity...and what we want to deny is an aspect of humanity.

I´m not sure that etymology explains the current usage of words. After all, we have those two words "human" and "humane" - both with the same etymological roots; so it´s reasonable to assume they aren´t supposed to express the same concept.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You've made some interesting points for me to think about. What I am about to say stems from a Christian worldview, and I do realize you are from an Atheistic worldview, so feel free to take what I say with a grain of salt.

First, I agree with you that both cruelty and kindness are genuine aspects of our humanity. They make up part of who we are as humans.

Second, if what you say is true about the word "humane" is true, that is, it used to be interchangeable with the word "human", then I am afraid that the definition has changed. That's not surprising, as definitions change all the time! "Gay" used to mean happy, but now it's homosexual. "Unicorn" used to mean any creature with a single horn, and now it refers to the mythical horse-like creature. Humane's definition is now specific to animals, which may or may not include ourselves, depending on your beliefs about humans.

Third, just because cruelty is a genuine aspect of our humanity does not automatically make cruelty right. Jesus taught that we ought to love our neighbors as ourselves. As a Christian, I take that commandment very seriously. When we are cruel, we are not showing love to our neighbor, and we see the result of it.

Finally, when we show kindness and compassion towards other people, we are showing love towards them. When we resist our animal-like instincts to do what is right, there is a word for this: it's called civilization. C.S. Lewis, in his book "Mere Christianity" put it this way:

"You will probably feel two desires - one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the keyboard and not another, is itself one the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play; our instincts are merely the keys."

He goes onto say that there are really no "good" or "bad" impulses, just like there are no "good" or "bad" notes on a keyboard. On a keyboard, what makes the notes "good" or "bad" depends entirely on the sheet of music. A note is good in one instance, but bad in another. His point is that this Moral Law ought to direct our impulses.

Once again, this all comes from a Christian worldview, so feel free to take the meat and throw away the bones!

I probably should've clarified that I'm in no way suggesting anything about morality itself. I just thought it a curious aspect of the word and language itself.

Does the word possibly influence how we view humanity itself? Does that influence extend beyond definitions in our minds and create judgements about morality? I don't know...but I would guess that it does...

Also, it doesn't merely refer to animals, regardless of whether or not one views mankind as animals. I've frequently seen/heard of a particular treatment of a person or group of people (such as solitary confinement) described as "inhumane".

 

[Ana the Ist]

I´m not sure that etymology explains the current usage of words. After all, we have those two words "human" and "humane" - both with the same etymological roots; so it´s reasonable to assume they aren´t supposed to express the same concept.

No...it doesn't explain the current use of the words. That's really the curious thing about it....when and why do you suppose they split?

From the etymology part of the OP...

"Human and humane were used interchangeably in the senses "pertaining to a human being" and "having qualities befitting human beings""

It's obvious that at some point the word humane changed to describe those qualities that are desirable....and exclude those qualities undesirable. Your explanation seems as likely as any other...perhaps the change was made to have a word to describe what we should aspire to be.

Language is a funny thing.

 

[TastyWallet]

I probably should've clarified that I'm in no way suggesting anything about morality itself. I just thought it a curious aspect of the word and language itself.

Ah ok, feel free to ignore those points then, in the context of this thread.

Does the word possibly influence how we view humanity itself? Does that influence extend beyond definitions in our minds and create judgements about morality? I don't know...but I would guess that it does...

I would agree with you on that point.

Also, it doesn't merely refer to animals, regardless of whether or not one views mankind as animals. I've frequently seen/heard of a particular treatment of a person or group of people (such as solitary confinement) described as "inhumane".

That's true! Perhaps the definition has changed yet again? It's also possible that the word is being misused. Language can be quite a fickle thing!

 

[quatona]

No...it doesn't explain the current use of the words. That's really the curious thing about it....when and why do you suppose they split?

From the etymology part of the OP...

"Human and humane were used interchangeably in the senses "pertaining to a human being" and "having qualities befitting human beings""

It's obvious that at some point the word humane changed to describe those qualities that are desirable....and exclude those qualities undesirable. Your explanation seems as likely as any other...perhaps the change was made to have a word to describe what we should aspire to be.

Language is a funny thing.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Humane is logically the preferable, the response to dignity (value in life) which is dignified (appropriate to this context).

 

[quatona]

No...it doesn't explain the current use of the words. That's really the curious thing about it....when and why do you suppose they split?

I don´t know. That might be an interesting subject for a linguistic research (this morning, I don´t have the time to do it ).
The only thing that it might be of practical importance for, though: Making sure that we don´t misunderstand texts from a certain era.

"Human and humane were used interchangeably in the senses "pertaining to a human being" and "having qualities befitting human beings""

It's obvious that at some point the word humane changed to describe those qualities that are desirable....and exclude those qualities undesirable. Your explanation seems as likely as any other...perhaps the change was made to have a word to describe what we should aspire to be.

What other explanations are you thinking of?

Language is a funny thing.

Yes. It´s not uncommon, though, that words that used to be descriptive at some point get a distinct normative, valuing, prescriptive,... connotation, and sometimes the valuing connotation even becomes the core of its meaning.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ah ok, feel free to ignore those points then, in the context of this thread.



I would agree with you on that point.



That's true! Perhaps the definition has changed yet again? It's also possible that the word is being misused. Language can be quite a fickle thing!

Fickle and curious indeed. I remember reading once (and this would be years ago so I'm not sure the truth of it now) that the Russian czar Ivan the Terrible wasn't given that sobriquet because he was a "terrible human being". It was something that in the Russian context referred more to his shrewdness/cleverness in battle. It would be more akin to Alexander the Great than anything.

Yet as the meaning of "terrible" changed over time (and held an entirely different meaning in other cultures) the characterization of this czar likewise changed to conform with the word's meaning. I'm not saying that he didn't actually do some terrible things (most monarchs do at times I imagine) I'm saying those aspects of his reign were emphasized because of this informal title.

Fickle indeed.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don´t know. That might be an interesting subject for a linguistic research (this morning, I don´t have the time to do it ).
The only thing that it might be of practical importance for, though: Making sure that we don´t misunderstand texts from a certain era.



What other explanations are you thinking of?


Yes. It´s not uncommon, though, that words that used to be descriptive at some point get a distinct normative, valuing, prescriptive,... connotation, and sometimes the valuing connotation even becomes the core of its meaning.

As far as other explanations go...

I suppose I was thinking of the psychological tendency to view ourselves in the best possible light. To minimize our flaws and emphasize our desirable traits. Something akin to narcissism...though not quite so pointed.

It's all speculation though...and speculation is all I'm expecting in this thread.

 

[quatona]

As far as other explanations go...

I suppose I was thinking of the psychological tendency to view ourselves in the best possible light. To minimize our flaws and emphasize our desirable traits. Something akin to narcissism...though not quite so pointed.

It's all speculation though...and speculation is all I'm expecting in this thread.

I don´t find that very convincing. I mean, this very terminology allows us to distinguish between "humane humans" and "inhumane humans".
(Then again, we often find people saying "These aren´t humans" when they strongly disapprove of their behaviour.)

Btw., in German there is only the word "menschlich", which is used in both meanings "human" and "humane". You can only tell from the context...

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don´t find that very convincing. I mean, this very terminology allows us to distinguish between "humane humans" and "inhumane humans".
(Then again, we often find people saying "These aren´t humans" when they strongly disapprove of their behaviour.)

Btw., in German there is only the word "menschlich", which is used in both meanings "human" and "humane". You can only tell from the context...

That's interesting, isn't English mainly a Germanic language?

I get what you're saying...I just don't get why you think it disagrees with my idea regarding why the meaning changed....

Could you elaborate more?

 

[quatona]

That's interesting, isn't English mainly a Germanic language?

Both are indogerman languages.

I get what you're saying...I just don't get why you think it disagrees with my idea regarding why the meaning changed....

Could you elaborate more?

What I mean is:
If the (conscious or unconscious) intent had been to make the positively valuing part appear as being descriptive of the human nature, it would have been counterproductive to establish two separate words which are clearly distinct in their meaning. We would have one word covering both.
Look, with "natural" we actually have this very issue: we never know if the person means it descriptively ("occuring in nature") or morally.

 

[quatona]

Interestingly, we have a similar issue with "moral": it can be used as "regarding morality" (i.e. as opposed to "amoral") as well as morally judging (i.e. as opposed to "immoral").
Not quite the same, though...

 

[Hieronymus]

the irony is that only humans can be inhumane and they frequently are...

 

[Ana the Ist]

Both are indogerman languages.


What I mean is:
If the (conscious or unconscious) intent had been to make the positively valuing part appear as being descriptive of the human nature, it would have been counterproductive to establish two separate words which are clearly distinct in their meaning. We would have one word covering both.
Look, with "natural" we actually have this very issue: we never know if the person means it descriptively ("occuring in nature") or morally.

Lol you make it sound as if people aren't ever (consciously or unconsciously) counterproductive. To me, it's akin to the battered wife who only describes the "good things about her husband" (he's a hard worker, he's a great provider, we enjoy the same movies, etc)...

What do you mean by using the word "natural" morally?

Edit: On second thought, that's not the best analogy...but cut me some slack, I've been up for 18 hours now.

 

[quatona]

Lol you make it sound as if people aren't ever (consciously or unconsciously) counterproductive. To me, it's akin to the battered wife who only describes the "good things about her husband" (he's a hard worker, he's a great provider, we enjoy the same movies, etc)...

What do you mean by using the word "natural" morally?

"You shouldn´t do that because it´s unnatural."

Edit: On second thought, that's not the best analogy...but cut me some slack, I've been up for 18 hours now.

Yes, it´s not a good analogy.
A better analogy would probably "male" and "manly".