Define "Inhuman"

[Cobblestones]

I further think that this capacity carries with it a moral imperative to live up to our own dreams, to "be the change you wish to see in the world." When we fail in that, we have become "inhuman" by forfeiting that which sets us apart.

Interesting perspective. Would you say then that those who live lives of "quiet desperation" and who simply go through life without actually reaching for their dreams would be considered to have behaved in a manner that is "inhuman"?

 

[Cobblestones]

Spot on.
Ironically the evidence suggests that those who believe themselves least likely to behave in an 'inhuman' manner are those most at risk of doing so.

I'm not sure I understand. Could you give an example of what you mean?

 

[sandandfoam]

I'm not sure I understand. Could you give an example of what you mean?

Philip Zimbardo has studied the situational forces at play when people behave in the type of inhuman way witnessed at Abu Ghraib, Rwanda and in Nazi death camps.
He states that the 'belief of personal power to resist powerful situational and systemic forces is little more than a reassuring illusion of invulnerability. Paradoxically, maintaining that illusion only serves to make one more vulnerable to maniplation.." (p180 - The Lucifer Effect)

 

[Storm]

Interesting perspective. Would you say then that those who live lives of "quiet desperation" and who simply go through life without actually reaching for their dreams would be considered to have behaved in a manner that is "inhuman"?

Hmmm, not quite. They may not have lived up to their dreams, but it takes more than that.

I dunno, man, it's so subjective.

 

[footprints]

:biglaugh:

Sorry... carry on.

LOL they may appear the same in many ways, albeit they are different.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm not sure I understand. Could you give an example of what you mean?

I recall Hitler prided himself on his humanity. He was also a self-pitying *******, but that's another story.

 

[Cobblestones]

Originally Posted by stephenw
Spot on. Ironically the evidence suggests that those who believe themselves least likely to behave in an 'inhuman' manner are those most at risk of doing so.

Originally Posted by Cobblestones
I'm not sure I understand. Could you give an example of what you mean?

Philip Zimbardo has studied the situational forces at play when people behave in the type of inhuman way witnessed at Abu Ghraib, Rwanda and in Nazi death camps. He states that the 'belief of personal power to resist powerful situational and systemic forces is little more than a reassuring illusion of invulnerability. Paradoxically, maintaining that illusion only serves to make one more vulnerable to maniplation.." (p180 - The Lucifer Effect)

May I break this down to see if I am understanding this correctly?

'belief of personal power to resist powerful situational and systemic forces is little more than a reassuring illusion of invulnerability.

In the case of individuals who are interrogated as terrorists, for example, the power to resist interrogation is really an illusion of invulnerability?

Paradoxically, maintaining that illusion only serves to make one more vulnerable to manipulation.

Consequently, those who feel that they could resist interrogation by their enemy are more vulnerable to be manipulated by the organizations that they represent? (I don't mean to isolate this to terrorists - we could well be speaking of spies for any nation or blind supporters of any political party or religion and the context would remain the same.)

 

[Cobblestones]

I recall Hitler prided himself on his humanity. He was also a self-pitying *******, but that's another story.

Hitler is not a representative sample of humans in general. There are perhaps five men in all of history that can compare to him. However, the people who gave him power and who actually carried out his orders would be a good example of what I think you are saying.

 

[sandandfoam]

Zimbardo was writing in terms of those doing the interrogation (or guarding the camps etc) rather than those on the receiving end.
Those receiving interrogation are not placed to behave in an inhuman fashion as long as they are captive. Their interrogators on the other hand......

 

[Cobblestones]

Zimbardo was writing in terms of those doing the interrogation (or guarding the camps etc) rather than those on the receiving end.
Those receiving interrogation are not placed to behave in an inhuman fashion as long as they are captive. Their interrogators on the other hand......

Oh! Got it. Jack Bauer and all..

 

[slave2six]

Paradoxically, maintaining that illusion only serves to make one more vulnerable to manipulation.

Consequently, those who feel that they could resist interrogation by their enemy are more vulnerable to be manipulated by the organizations that they represent? (I don't mean to isolate this to terrorists - we could well be speaking of spies for any nation or blind supporters of any political party or religion and the context would remain the same.)

Zimbardo was writing in terms of those doing the interrogation (or guarding the camps etc) rather than those on the receiving end. Those receiving interrogation are not placed to behave in an inhuman fashion as long as they are captive. Their interrogators on the other hand......

It's an interesting perspective, Cobbles. I wonder what Zambardo or Stephen think about terrorists and spies etc who are obviously manipulated by the orgs they represent. Do not such people also require an illusion of invulnerability in order to be manipulated? Is such an illusion required of one who is easily manipulated?

 

[DarkSun]

I'm reading a book about how some people are "inhuman" to one another yet thus far the contents have simply outlined those things that humans do. I am curious what you think the word "inhuman" means or implies and if there are examples of what you mean by your particular definition.

You're looking at things from a different viewpoint compared to the person in the book, I think.

He or she seems to think morality is an absolute. "Do unto others as you would have done to yourself" is not merely a human construct in his/her eyes - it is a moral imperative that only the inhumane would defy.

If I'm not mistaken, you disagree, and believe that morality is subjective. If you try to look through the author's eyes it becomes a bit more clear.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Humans are as vast any person I am aware of (including myself)... As such I don't believe that anything which humans do is inhuman. We embody contradiction within ourselves and as people we do so even more.

I think as a "common sense" perspective that when someone says inhuman they mean repugnant (usually morally so). And in this vein, inhumane is meaningful; that which is improper for humans to behave if they wish to promote human life/dignity. But inhuman... I am not sure I can point to any one behavior or action which humans do not engage in but some other form of life does (without mere capability being an issue: we don't have a hummingbird's weight and muscular structure thus we are not able hover in place under our own power...).

MTF