GameBanshee Forums

So, earlier today a friend of mine pointed out an article about how this woman who was one of the few survivors of the 9/11 incident and the president of the survivors charity thing or whatever was exposed as a fake. The article is easily google-able, but not the point of this thread. I showed this to my mother and her husband, and it was called Inhumane.

Now, this isn't right exactly, considering inhumane implies not human, or rather instinctual and beast-like. What the woman did was deceive, use treachery to her own benefit, in this case sympathy.

Thinking negatively about the terms Humane and Inhumane, what would you consider worse.

An inhuman act would be like a homicide with little to no reason associated with it, like if some guy hits on your girlfriend not realizing that she is actually your girlfriend, and you beat the crap out of him whether or not you know this. It's animal like behavior, claiming territory over your girlfriend. It's completely uncalled for, especially if you could have asked for him to back down informing him of the situation. But even if he didn't back down it'd still be an inhuman act, and not inhuman as in not capable of being performed by humans but more commonly performed by most every mammal or animal species.

A Human act implies something that animal's cannot do or think of. Like the holocaust for example, and while I'm sure some people would disagree and call hitler "Inhuman," in reality no animal is capable of committing a genocide over a religious belief of a specific type of people. Hell, lets not even compare beating up the dude who's hitting on your girlfriend to the holocaust, lets compare it to something a little more common. How about the invention of words associated with pure emotion and then condemning those words as so called "Curse Words." If someone says "Aww dammit!" They aren't cursing, they're just frustrated with something. This is also human, declaring parts of communication unacceptable at times.

Which is worse? There is so much depth and originality to some humane acts against society that could look to be the most awful thing ever seen, but then there's the inhuman acts, people not considering moral and righteousness at all, and just claiming territory or hurting people, possibly killing them for little reason.

Just a random thought I felt like asking.

buddhism makes a distinction between 3 poisons: anger, ignorance, and greed. They all lead to negative consequences. Pride and envy and attachment are also negative but lead to higher realms (I think actually I am a little foggy on my understanding )

But I think you are making a distinction between ignorance and the other two (anger, greed).

There are thought to be 6 karmic realms which the da lai lama says are metaphorical but many think them to be actual realms.

Incidentally ignorance is the animal realm which helped me make the connection.
Here's a table just for fun:

Gods (not like Christian Theism) - pride
Asuras - demons or demigods - envy (of the gods)
Humans - attachment (building up)
Animals - ignorance
Hungry Ghosts - greed
Hell Beings - anger

I think some of your thought is different from mine but I am just sharing my experience. Personally I hope to learn from all of my mistakes. I am sure to make them. The best I can do is learn from them and take the consequences gracefully.

Humane is not synonymous with human - it just means kind and compassionate and as such "humane acts against society" is an oxymoron.


P.S. Claudius, have you considered just starting a thread about Buddhism?

Vicsun wrote:Humane is not synonymous with human - it just means kind and compassionate and as such "humane acts against society" is an oxymoron.

didn't realize that, but hopefully people got what I was trying to say.

Siberys wrote:didn't realize that, but hopefully people got what I was trying to say.

Weren't you asking whether 'inhumane' was better than 'humane' or did I completely miss the point?

vicsun good idea. I did think my ideas belonged in this thread. After all it said 'don't spam' it didn't say 'don't share your beliefs pertinent to the discussion'...

Does that make sense?

Also religion is a big topic. Even if I narrow it down to buddhism I am not sure what I would say if I started a 'buddhist thread'. It seems more useful to respond to a persons heartfelt question than start a catch all 'share your buddhist (or religious) story thread'

I do participate in buddhist forums where I have a chance to broach topics in buddhism. But for game banshee it makes more sense to me to share the understandings of buddhism within the context on someone's 'life question'.

In case you missed it my post was meant to be friendly and was sharing that buddhism did make a distinction between ignorance and anger. While at the same time it views both as negative (so its a real moot point which is worse).

Imo ignorance is hard to get out of because you continue to make the same mistakes and you don't see what is happening. Anger is bad because it causes you to do bad things such as harm others which results in bad karma and 'keeps you in a hole'.

As I see it, it boils down to a question about what is worse: instinctive response violence or premeditated violence.

@Vicsun, this is a better example of what I mean (thank you lythium). It's not just the words, it's the actions behind those words; negatively speaking of course.

@Siberys

So, earlier today a friend of mine pointed out an article about how this woman who was one of the few survivors of the 9/11 incident and the president of the survivors charity thing or whatever was exposed as a fake. The article is easily google-able, but not the point of this thread. I showed this to my mother and her husband, and it was called Inhumane.

Now, this isn't right exactly, considering inhumane implies not human, or rather instinctual and beast-like. What the woman did was deceive, use treachery to her own benefit, in this case sympathy.

Thinking negatively about the terms Humane and Inhumane, what would you consider worse.

I think your parents meant that it was not very kind (not humane) to publicly embarrass a person who did not benefit monetary or otherwise from her "story" and allegedly spent a lot of her own time and money helping the real victims and the grieving families (that is why some people might feel uncomfortable).
Obviously, a "humane" approach would've been to let her go quietly. Would that be worse than a public exposure? Or better? Or even possible at all?
Nobody knows yet how much in her story was faked. Maybe 100%. Maybe 20%. Who really cares? Maybe this fat blonde just craved attention. Well, she got more than she bargained for.
The "inhumane" say she "betrayed the public trust". They want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Can't blame them either.
For me, the most interesting aspect of this "exposure" is people reaction.

I think your parents meant that it was not very kind (not humane) to publicly embarrass a person who did not benefit monetary or otherwise from her "story" and allegedly spent a lot of her own time and money helping the real victims and the grieving families (that is why some people might feel uncomfortable).

....Yeah, I know this. And it's a very human act to embarrass another human, embarrassment is an emotion I doubt any animal has ever felt. This really has NOTHING to do with my parents whatsoever.

The word or spelling, not the point. My parents, NOT the point. Think of JUST the meaning of the words inhuman and human, apply them to any negative situation and which is worse. That's the thread. Nothing really much more to it than that.

lythium wrote:As I see it, it boils down to a question about what is worse: instinctive response violence or premeditated violence.

If this is what you're asking then I can tell you my opinion - premeditated violence/any harming really is worse in my book. In order to do this you are actually aware of your actions, you have planned it out, thought about it and if you are a rational person you are aware of the consequences so this is for me the worse offense so to say. Of course I did say rational, i.e. sane because the other would open a different topic I think.

As for instinctive violence, so to call it now, I suppose simply because it lacks this part about thinking about it, being able to see the consequences, I consider it to be lesser than the above, but I do still think of it as a great danger.

Also another think I forgot, I do honestly believe you can do much more harm with the premeditated violence, than instinctive one. Unless we have some bizarre accident, in reality the spur of the moment rage thing usually centers on one person, while premeditated could go a long way to effect whole nations sometimes.

motivation and action are both important.

If you do a good action with a bad motivation its not so good.
If you do a bad action with a good motivation its not so bad.

In this light a bad action with a bad motivation is worse than a bad action without premeditation.

Siberys wrote:....Yeah, I know this. And it's a very human act to embarrass another human, embarrassment is an emotion I doubt any animal has ever felt. This really has NOTHING to do with my parents whatsoever.

I know.

Think of JUST the meaning of the words inhuman and human, apply them to any negative situation and which is worse. That's the thread. Nothing really much more to it than that.

That is what I did, or at least tried to do. I just used one of your own examples to show two different approaches to the situation, both legitimate.
The problem with humane/inhumane thing is there is a huge grey zone. I am not talking about something as extreme as homicide, though even in a murder case the court would consider aggravating and mitigating factors.

In the grey zone outside the courtroom the matters and definitions become blurred.

However, if you wish to narrow the topic down to premeditated vs. spontaneous, premeditated is worse. Sometimes people get strongly provoked. Blind fury is a good description of such state of mind when judgment is impaired.

@Claudius

If you do a good action with a bad motivation its not so good.

Can you give an example?

@Claudius
Quote:
If you do a good action with a bad motivation its not so good.
Can you give an example?

give someone a compliment because you want them to favor you. Rather than to make them feel happy.

Claudius wrote: If you do a bad action with a good motivation its not so bad.

Does that justify reaching a set purpose without regard for the consequences?

Sounds very much like politics to me, where our government does something for the good of its people but ignores how many get injured or harmed along the way.

In my opinion any bad action is despicable, regardless of its motivation.

Then again, to be completey pure is, sadly, almost impossible. We're not all Buddha. Yet.

bad action with a good motivation is like you lie to someone and tell them you like their clothes in order to make them feel good.

Its bad because its a lie but it was with a good intention. It is not as bad because you have a good heart and you will probably eventually learn how to make people feel good without lying. It is bad because lying erodes trust among other things.

If you lied to someone to make them like you that would be double bad because it would be a lie (bad) for the purpose of greed.

Your example was interesting too. In your example you do something bad to some people for the purpose of doing something good to others. For example you might kick someone off their land to build an interstate through their property. I think if a government truly has good intentions they realize that they need interstates but also that the feelings of landowners are important too. So they might compensate the landowner somewhat generously.

Edit: some of my thinking is a little rigid (as I have expressed it) but I am trying to make the point that both the intention and the action are important.