I mean, they wouldn’t even be wrong if they said it was human. And by extention, one could argue that it was humane, when applying the origional meaning of the word. In my opinion people would be just as incorrect by saying what they were doing was inhumane. My beef here really is with the words humane and inhumane. The way people use these words, is perpetuating a lie about human character. Both words shouldn’t be used at all. Genocide is (in)human(e), slavery is (in)human(e), *ism is (in)human(e), …, pretty much every form of cruelty present on planet Earth is (in)human(e)*.
*) to be read as human, humane, inhumane (excluding inhuman)
If you use this way of thinking then the words humane and inhumane completely lose all meaning and the conversation is completely pointless. Regardless of the etymology of a word, what matters is the way that they are being used presently by society. And presently, no one uses the word “humane” to mean “something that a human does” because there is simply no reason to have a word that means that. It conveys very little useful information. And when the animal agriculture industry says that its practices are “humane” they are not saying “a human is performing these actions”. They are very clearly trying to imply that what they are doing is “good” without actually saying it because of how ridiculous it would sound.
I agree with the implying-part. But it is what is human, not what a human does. And the way humane and inhumane are commonly used are a fiction. Humane, is just arbitrary “good” “human” characteristics. For example compassion; We know, that at least some animals are compassionate too, so it is not something special only humans have. The in in inhumane implies, that the associated characteristics are non-human. Yet, every thing ever referred to as inhumane is absolutely human. Both words, when looking at them closely, just don’t make any sense, and I would go as far as saying are semantically incorrect.
And humane as a synonym for human still would be as useful as the word human, just without any fictional connotation. The human brain, human society, the human experience, …
If you want to continue this dialogue, please leave the topic of the post out of it. My critique of the word in-/humane was/is general. The post was just my discussion starter because it contained the word humane. Nothing more, nothing less.
In order to use language for communication humans have agreed upon definitions for certain sounds when used in combination. We call these combinations of sounds “words”. Words only have meaning based on the way that people use and understand them. Dictionaries are not there to tell people what a word means, otherwise there would only ever need to be one dictionary made for any language ever and if anyone uses a word differently they are just wrong. Dictionaries are an attempt by a person or group of people to take a snapshot of the way that a society is using a particular set of words. They are documenting the meaning of words, not prescribing them. That’s also why you will see slang appear in the dictionary as it is updated.
I understand that what you are trying to argue is that the common definition of humane is bad, but unfortunately that’s just not how words work. The word humane has an agreed upon definition based on the way that society is currently using it and your definition explicitly goes against that. In a debate, one can, and should, argue semantics in cases where the two parties do not agree on the definitions of words until they do reach an agreement. And in that small scale, those two parties can agree upon whatever definition they want and as long as they both understand what each other means, they can communicate effectively. But that is not what is happening when someone is addressing a general audience. In that case you have to assume that the broadly accepted definition of the word is the one being used.
My critique of the word in-/humane was/is general.
So what is your suggestion? The word humane is erased from the English language entirely in favor of the synonyms that you listed initially? I don’t see how that will change anything since people are using the word to mean the same thing as those synonyms already. I think your issue is just with the fact that you don’t like the way that people are using it based on etymology alone which is meaningless. I suppose you also take issue with the word astronaut because they aren’t literally “space sailors” and the etymology traces back to the latin words for space and sailor (astro: like astronomer - naut: like nautical)?
ETA: and to be clear, I used the word does and not is because “humane” in that case was describing an action. “Humane” can be both an adjective and an adverb.
I’ll ignore the obvious boilerplate (first paragraph). TL;DR: Yes, I’d suggest removing the use of in-/humane completely (same for the German counterpart un-/menschlich). But not because I think the definition is bad. That argument could also be made: It really is an empty word that people attach any meaning to that fits their current purpose. But that’s really not my argument. It seems you’re familiar with syntax vs semantics, so I’ll omit that wall of text. But, one example:
The elephant eats the peanut.
The peanut eats the elephant.
Both phrases are syntactically correct but the second is semantically incorrect. A peanut cannot eat an elephant. It’s the same with at least both words, humane and inhumane, in tandem. They are semantically incorrect. Humane denotes a set of human characteristics (yet, it is a real subset). The in in inhumane implies there is no intersection with the set of human characteristics. Yet, everything labeled as inhumane is part of the set of human chracteristics. The in in inhumane also implies it is the opposite of humane, which makes no sense if they are both subsets of the same set. No matter how you turn it, both terms are logical contradictions. And that’s also why (imho), whenever they are used (at least most of the time), the statements containing them are nonsense.
I mean, they wouldn’t even be wrong if they said it was human. And by extention, one could argue that it was humane, when applying the origional meaning of the word. In my opinion people would be just as incorrect by saying what they were doing was inhumane. My beef here really is with the words humane and inhumane. The way people use these words, is perpetuating a lie about human character. Both words shouldn’t be used at all. Genocide is (in)human(e), slavery is (in)human(e), *ism is (in)human(e), …, pretty much every form of cruelty present on planet Earth is (in)human(e)*.
*) to be read as human, humane, inhumane (excluding inhuman)
If you use this way of thinking then the words humane and inhumane completely lose all meaning and the conversation is completely pointless. Regardless of the etymology of a word, what matters is the way that they are being used presently by society. And presently, no one uses the word “humane” to mean “something that a human does” because there is simply no reason to have a word that means that. It conveys very little useful information. And when the animal agriculture industry says that its practices are “humane” they are not saying “a human is performing these actions”. They are very clearly trying to imply that what they are doing is “good” without actually saying it because of how ridiculous it would sound.
I agree with the implying-part. But it is what is human, not what a human does. And the way humane and inhumane are commonly used are a fiction. Humane, is just arbitrary “good” “human” characteristics. For example compassion; We know, that at least some animals are compassionate too, so it is not something special only humans have. The in in inhumane implies, that the associated characteristics are non-human. Yet, every thing ever referred to as inhumane is absolutely human. Both words, when looking at them closely, just don’t make any sense, and I would go as far as saying are semantically incorrect. And humane as a synonym for human still would be as useful as the word human, just without any fictional connotation. The human brain, human society, the human experience, … If you want to continue this dialogue, please leave the topic of the post out of it. My critique of the word in-/humane was/is general. The post was just my discussion starter because it contained the word humane. Nothing more, nothing less.
In order to use language for communication humans have agreed upon definitions for certain sounds when used in combination. We call these combinations of sounds “words”. Words only have meaning based on the way that people use and understand them. Dictionaries are not there to tell people what a word means, otherwise there would only ever need to be one dictionary made for any language ever and if anyone uses a word differently they are just wrong. Dictionaries are an attempt by a person or group of people to take a snapshot of the way that a society is using a particular set of words. They are documenting the meaning of words, not prescribing them. That’s also why you will see slang appear in the dictionary as it is updated.
I understand that what you are trying to argue is that the common definition of humane is bad, but unfortunately that’s just not how words work. The word humane has an agreed upon definition based on the way that society is currently using it and your definition explicitly goes against that. In a debate, one can, and should, argue semantics in cases where the two parties do not agree on the definitions of words until they do reach an agreement. And in that small scale, those two parties can agree upon whatever definition they want and as long as they both understand what each other means, they can communicate effectively. But that is not what is happening when someone is addressing a general audience. In that case you have to assume that the broadly accepted definition of the word is the one being used.
So what is your suggestion? The word humane is erased from the English language entirely in favor of the synonyms that you listed initially? I don’t see how that will change anything since people are using the word to mean the same thing as those synonyms already. I think your issue is just with the fact that you don’t like the way that people are using it based on etymology alone which is meaningless. I suppose you also take issue with the word astronaut because they aren’t literally “space sailors” and the etymology traces back to the latin words for space and sailor (astro: like astronomer - naut: like nautical)?
ETA: and to be clear, I used the word does and not is because “humane” in that case was describing an action. “Humane” can be both an adjective and an adverb.
I’ll ignore the obvious boilerplate (first paragraph). TL;DR: Yes, I’d suggest removing the use of in-/humane completely (same for the German counterpart un-/menschlich). But not because I think the definition is bad. That argument could also be made: It really is an empty word that people attach any meaning to that fits their current purpose. But that’s really not my argument. It seems you’re familiar with syntax vs semantics, so I’ll omit that wall of text. But, one example:
The elephant eats the peanut.
The peanut eats the elephant.
Both phrases are syntactically correct but the second is semantically incorrect. A peanut cannot eat an elephant. It’s the same with at least both words, humane and inhumane, in tandem. They are semantically incorrect. Humane denotes a set of human characteristics (yet, it is a real subset). The in in inhumane implies there is no intersection with the set of human characteristics. Yet, everything labeled as inhumane is part of the set of human chracteristics. The in in inhumane also implies it is the opposite of humane, which makes no sense if they are both subsets of the same set. No matter how you turn it, both terms are logical contradictions. And that’s also why (imho), whenever they are used (at least most of the time), the statements containing them are nonsense.