004 ☓ anon text

[envy_the_sinners]

[Scar's been lying low in Olivine ever since the hurricane, and he's starting to go a little stir-crazy. Being left bored with his thoughts can only end in one thing. Anon questions.]

In my time here, I have come to find that there are a great many "worlds" that are home to people who wouldn't be considered human, but experience the same depth of thought and range of emotion.

[Even he can make that conclusion, now.]

In that case, what is humanity? A measure of physical traits? A state of mind? Something into which one must be born?

Comments

anon 5ever and ever, I'm assuming

[envy_the_sinners]

Then in this line of thought, humanity as a concept can exist only in a place where biological humans are considered to be the sole pinnacle of moral reasoning.

Are you referring to "adopting" humanity in the biological sense, or as a moral concept?

Yup!

[a_sin_for_him]

And even then, should it? Morality is a fluid concept, not laws set in stone. Take two people and give them a series of hypothetical moral puzzles, and they'll likely give different answers.

More simply that the ideas and attributes generally associated with the concept of 'humanity' aren't exclusive to biological humans. So why should it be 'humanity' that's the defining term? Were humankind the first to feel? I don't think so.

But I suppose that's part of the first point. The debate only applies when 'humanity' is being considered some moral pinnacle.

[envy_the_sinners]

Even Pokémon feel, to an extent. I doubt many would even argue that human beings were the first to be emotional.

If 'humanity' is a poor term for it, then what ought it be called? Because it is a valid point. I have known non-humans who possess a greater strength of morals and sense of compassion or emotion than many humans.

[Oh, Scar. Oooohhhh Scar.]

[a_sin_for_him]

I don't know. And I've thought on the subject, before. HumaniTY isn't the same as humanNESS. Even 'personness' isn't quite right, because humanity as a concept tends to come with entirely positive connotations. Morality, empathy, compassion, charity...

Some humans don't deserve to lay claim to that 'humanity'. And most humans aren't entirely full of those concepts, anyway. Humans aren't entirely good or bad, they're all a mix of both. That sliding scale of morality again.

[envy_the_sinners]

Then it is something that is nearly impossible to define. A word created in a world where humans are considered to be the only beings who could possibly possess such a depth of feeling that allows emotion to override instinct or what is the most logical or the most rational.

[a_sin_for_him]

I think you've answered your question.

At least as best as it can be answered.

It's all a matter of empathy. Or the capacity for empathy.

[envy_the_sinners]

But is that not just the definition based on the concept that humans are the only people who experience that? The concept that we had determined to be flawed? What of a non-human who is capable of empathy?

[a_sin_for_him]

No, that's what I mean. It's empathy, not humanity, that matters.

The latter shouldn't be a synonym for the former for that very reason. We're in agreement.

[envy_the_sinners]

Then would you say that being human is a state that can be attained? Or is it something that one simply always is?

[a_sin_for_him]

Biological humanity is obviously something achievable to those born other. This place proves that.

The capacity for empathy...I don't know. I'm inclined to believe that's something one either has from the start or doesn't at all.

[envy_the_sinners]

This place is also capable of bringing life to the dead. I don't know if that makes it a bad point of comparison, or calls every universal rule into question.

There do seem to be those who are completely incapable of it.