Interestingly (or perhaps not) I started filming with the assumption that humane and human were spelled the same, and didn't discover my error until I looked up the definition. Clearly, spelling is not one of my strong points. With that in mind, it is - I suppose - reasonably to call into question the... topicality of the C.S. Lewis quote. Meh.
3 comments:
If you watch a lot of action movies you'll realize that they all have this strange hypothesis that what separates human beings from animals (or in the movie good guys from bad guys) is their ability to be compassionate. That compassion and sympathy are . . . pillars of being "human". Then when people break those pillars of being human they are acting in a way not worthy of humanity, inhumanly. I don't think I agree with that way of looking at things, but I think that idea of acting in a way not worthy of humanity is somewhat what people mean when they say "inhumane" *shrug*
It occurs to me that saying that someone who acts selfishly is behaving less humanely than someone who is selfless seems backwards. Based on our knowledge of the tendencies of human behavior to be more selfish and more cruel to others, you would think that we would label someone "humane" who followed the greater tendency of humans. Assuming we need to make a distinction at all.
But this also lines up with another tendency of humans, the tendency to hope for the best (e.g. being more likely to believe in heaven than in hell, or in the general goodness of humanity than the general evil). Wishful thinking.
I think you're right, that things are deemed inhumane because they aren't how humans should act. Maybe, the reason for this seemingly arbitrariness is because "inhumane" actions deaden the conscience, degrading people from being full people. It implies that we, who are capable of knowing right from wrong, are living in such a way that ignores innate moral principles, similarly to beasts (thinking of Lord of the Flies), because beasts don't have ethical codes. Perhaps animals are better at obeying their natural law?
What I think I'm trying to say is, humans are capable of both more evil and more goodness than animals, because we have a sense of right and wrong. And when people stray from that code, we are saying less that they're being evil like animals, but being unguided by morals like animals.
This whole topic is really interesting, because it's reminding me of the different interpretations of natural law, and how I don't know if it's the way people act in the "state of nature" (John Locke, I believe) of if it's the conscience that debaters use to limit the extremes of the position they uphold, or if it's the rights everyone has, such as life, liberty, and property (thanks Frederic Bastiat).
As for punishments for tuesday. Punishments serve two purposes, to repay in order to restore justice, and to prevent further infractions. I'd say that the only reason for a punishment would be to prevent him from procrastinating again. And the best threat would be, in my opinion, fear of looking bad. So we just have to convince Tuesday that we'll think less of him if he forgets another day. Hmm...
@asianmoshpit (comment on youtube): Ouch.
Post a Comment