Who could possibly be against acting 'humanely'?
I, for one, am willing to be charged with such an offense, for the charge is too broad. What precisely does it mean to act 'humanely'? Name some cases of exemplary individuals acting 'humanely' to give some kind of context for the charge; furnish some case histories that depict specific human beings who stand as virtual metaphors of 'humanity at its best.' I maintain such narratives as these are indispensable if our talk of acting 'humanely' is to have any real content. They provide the various contexts within which we can see what acting 'humanely' might in practice look like, especially if it means that we should act in a way that shows 'humanity at its best.' As the old 'Ethics 101' example illustrates, even the Golden Rule needs explicit context: just try teaching it to a sadomasochist. That seemingly self-explanatory 'rule for righteousness' becomes a prescription for perversion.
Even so, I suspect that this attempt at defending my position is not likely to prove successful - and not merely because I have yet to set forth a fuller argument. For, on the surface, anyone against acting 'humanely' must ipso facto favor acting cruelly, even bestially, in short, 'inhumanely.' Yet my defense here is but the logical obverse of my prior one. Without some narrative context for speaking meaningfully of 'humanity at its best,' there can be no meaningful discourse of 'humanity at its worst,' that is, of acting 'inhumanely.'
"Against Acting 'Humanely',"
Mercer Law Review: Vol. 58:
3, Article 6.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr/vol58/iss3/6