Our discussion of Grass this week brought up some thought-provoking considerations about the criterion for humanity, to what extent that human ideal overlapped with the reality of the human race, whether certain members of homo-sapiens might be considered "inhuman," and whether any non-human species might be considered to have "human" traits.
We tended to revolve our arguments around the idea that there is some characteristic that a species might have which we characterize as "human." The easiest alien species to characterize on Grass was the foxen, which have empathic tendencies. Someone pointed out that the hippae's sadistic enjoyment of violence also mirror human tendencies, albeit darker ones. We tend to resist calling traits like these "human" because they reflect darker aspects of human nature.
Thinking of our failure to properly define a criterion for "humanity" along with our discussion of the qualifications required for assistance from Habitat for Humanity, I started wondering about the Humane Society. The word humane derives from the word human, but it is typically associated with the empathic qualities that human beings are capable of displaying, particularly in response to something of a different species. Also, the label humane is applied to someone whose actions characterize them as such. There is less complication involving physical status as a human being or the mental capacity to reason.
Perhaps instead of trying to classify the foxen and the hippae as "human" or "inhuman," it would make more sense to create a new categorical distinction of "humane" or "inhumane." For example, creatures like the foxen are humane, in that their disposition and character allow them to coexist with human beings. They perceive as "good" what most humans perceive as "good." The hippae, who perceive as "good" what most humans think of as "evil," are inhumane, and cannot coexist peacefully with human society, in spite of the fact that they are intelligent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with Chicodelabarba in his assertion that our discussion would benefit from a rephrasing of the terms used to describe what is, in our minds, human and inhuman. The slight change to humane and inhumane provides a distinction that makes a big change. Human versus inhuman is too closely related to biological definitions and implies the possibility of dehumanizing homo sapiens which are seen inhuman (like the bons in Grass). Using the terms humane and inhumane however, creates a more nuanced distinction that allows us to see species of human-level intelligence (or higher) as both on our level intellectually and emotionally, but of a different categorization in terms of good and evil. In this light, I agree with Chicodelabarba's shift of focus to avoid any confusion when it comes to what counts as "human" characteristics.
ReplyDelete