Regarding the "inhumane"...

[Chesterton]

"Humane" may be partially an expression of aspiration, but it's also a recognition of fact that humans have a capacity for cruelty which animals don't have, which is to say a capacity for morality which animals don't have. At least we think they don't; I've seen a domesticated cat seemingly torment a lizard, but that's rare in nature I think, and we really don't know what's on animals minds. So it's a recognition of both aspiration and capacity, a recognition that we are different from the lower animals.

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 was in a bar one time and this drunk guy was giving me this tale about how the night before he'd beat up three guys at once. I paid him a compliment and called him a liar at the same time by telling him "Wow, that's a fantastic story! You're incredible!" "Fantastic" of course in the old sense meaning "the stuff of fantasy" and "incredible" meaning "not to be believed".

 

[Eryk]

Well, since when has it been "inhuman" to be cruel?

We made it this far because we had to cooperate to survive. It enabled our ancestors to hunt in groups and civilization was invented by people who built massive irrigation projects to grow food. Pro-social behaviors that reinforce trust and cohesion are known as good not because of sentiment but because of necessity. They are life.

 

[Dre Khipov]

1) Words can mean whatever we can collectively and contextually agree these to mean. These don't have to refer to the same concepts, and these generally don't. There's plenty of confusion because people end up arguing about what they impose on any given label, and it's a pointless argument IMO. There's plenty of room for disagreement in that respect, of course it's easier to communicate when we are on the same page about meaning.

2) Not sure that we can generalize concepts like "humane", since it generally deals with surrounding culture and upbringing and not something that's "embedded" in all of us.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

Yes; in English, the 'rules' are more honoured in their breach; hence weird situations like 'flammable' and 'inflammable'...

Wittgenstein suggested that words have no intrinsic semantics beyond how they are used; i.e. their useful semantics are a collaborative, social construct. That's why words change meaning over time and across social groups.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I was in a bar one time and this drunk guy was giving me this tale about how the night before he'd beat up three guys at once. I paid him a compliment and called him a liar at the same time by telling him "Wow, that's a fantastic story! You're incredible!" "Fantastic" of course in the old sense meaning "the stuff of fantasy" and "incredible" meaning "not to be believed".

In Scotland they'd say, "Did ye aye?", or - for more emphasis - "Oh, did ye aye?" (as in 'a likely story'). Sarcasm.

 

[Tree of Life]

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?

The notion of "humaneness" and "inhumaneness" is rooted in the notion that human beings are created in God's image. And so, in a sense, to be "humane" is to be what God intended humans to be - like God. Of course, Christians believe that this isn't the whole picture. Humans are both like God and unlike God because of sin. But Christians teach that sin takes away from our humanity. When we sin, when we're cruel for example, we become less human. This is also connected to the notion that to be what our creator intended for us to be is to be truly human. Jesus Christ, being sinless, was the only true human being the world has ever seen.

But if Christians are wrong then all of the above is hogwash and to be humane would include cruelty.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

OP is playing on ambiguity, yes we can both be human and inhumane. Just like we can possess dignity, but not act in a dignified manner.