161. How to Call Somebody "Inhumane"

Since the most compelling lamentations in our literature are over "man's inhumanity to man" (Robert Burns} it wouldn't be surprising if "inhumane" were one of the words you might be most tempted to apply to the person you want to cut down in a race for Congress.  It's been done.

But "inhumane" is a word you have to be careful with.  It may not apply, and it could turn around and bite you.

Say you're watching a program about a food shortage in an African country.  Pictures of babies starving.  Then you find out that your Congressman has voted against further food shipments.  You call him "inhumane."  And that's just what his opponent is calling him.

Ah, but then you find out that free food in a country can lower prices enough to drive that country's farmers out of business, and that a shortage of farmers will magnify the shortage of food in following years, and that there's a good chance that many babies will starve as a result. 

Are you going to call your Congressman "inhumane" now?  It will depend, and should only depend, on the chances and his reaction to them.  If the experts tell him (and all of us) that there's only a 2% chance that the free food will lower prices enough to drive enough farmers out of business to significantly affect the babies, and he still votes against the food, I think you can confidently call him "inhumane."  You'll have most us with you.  If, on the other hand, the experts (on whom we're all dependent here) report a 98% chance, it will be the other way round and his opponent (and you) will be "inhumane."

Your confidence will properly vary with the reported probabilities.  5% chance of a harmful effect?  Yes, only a few change their minds.  10%?  Still safe. 20%  Well, doubtful. 30%?  Nah, can't risk it.  "This is long-term harm we're talking about."  It will be the same at the other end.

And it will clearly be the same in other areas where probability estimates can make an apparently inhumane position change places with an apparently humane one.  If Daniel Patrick Moynihan acted on his "Report" (1965) that welfare was creating a "dependency culture" and voted for bills that reduce coverage he'd be in the position of our Congressman.  If Western nations acted on Jack Delf's suggestion that they are creating "aid-dependent" nations in the Balkans (Post #136) they'd be in that position. 

In every case we are looking at the probabilities of harm acceptable to the person or persons we want to call a bad name.  We've learned not to look at their reaction to television pictures of starving children, or of single mothers taking advantage of food stamps, or of foreigners lined up at a dock.  Or at our own reactions to those pictures.  That's distracting.  We admit that there is always going to be some danger, some dependency — some undeserving poor helped, some profligate nations bailed out, some money wasted — but we don't let a few cases change our standards of word-use.

Also the same, finally, is the risk to ourselves.  Our word-use reveals our own standards.  Go too far up the range with "humane" and you'll be the one cut down.  "Jeez, he thinks a 4% chance of a mistaken handout justifies a guy keeping his hand in his pocket."