I’ll ignore the obvious boilerplate (first paragraph). TL;DR: Yes, I’d suggest removing the use of in-/humane completely (same for the German counterpart un-/menschlich). But not because I think the definition is bad. That argument could also be made: It really is an empty word that people attach any meaning to that fits their current purpose. But that’s really not my argument. It seems you’re familiar with syntax vs semantics, so I’ll omit that wall of text. But, one example:
The elephant eats the peanut.
The peanut eats the elephant.
Both phrases are syntactically correct but the second is semantically incorrect. A peanut cannot eat an elephant. It’s the same with at least both words, humane and inhumane, in tandem. They are semantically incorrect. Humane denotes a set of human characteristics (yet, it is a real subset). The in in inhumane implies there is no intersection with the set of human characteristics. Yet, everything labeled as inhumane is part of the set of human chracteristics. The in in inhumane also implies it is the opposite of humane, which makes no sense if they are both subsets of the same set. No matter how you turn it, both terms are logical contradictions. And that’s also why (imho), whenever they are used (at least most of the time), the statements containing them are nonsense.
It’s not boilerplate. If you want to argue semantics that is the heart of the conversation. If we can’t agree on how things are defined then we cannot begin discussion on specific definitions. Languages evolve over time and if we aren’t in agreement about that then there is no point in debating semantics.
To the point in your second paragraph, I would argue that we attach humane to a subset of characteristics that we view as desirable for a human to have and inhumane as undesirable characteristics for a human to have. The words have nothing to do with what characteristics actually do belong to humans. It is nonsensical to even talk about a subset of characteristics that belong to humanity as a whole since every individual is different and can display various characteristics. You can also view it from the lens of inhumane being another way of saying “your actions are so reprehensible that I have a hard time viewing you as a human”. We hold ourselves to a higher standard than the rest of the animal kingdom because of our ability to reason. We have a higher moral agency. If you do something like murder and you know it is wrong you aren’t acting in a way that strives towards the ideal of what being a human is that we have created as a society. By calling that person or their actions inhumane you aren’t literally saying that they aren’t a human or that a human can’t perform those actions. Obviously they are and they can. I have literally never heard anyone try to argue that the word “humane” means or should mean the same thing as “human” and “inhumane” means or should mean the same thing as “not human”.
I’ll ignore the obvious boilerplate (first paragraph). TL;DR: Yes, I’d suggest removing the use of in-/humane completely (same for the German counterpart un-/menschlich). But not because I think the definition is bad. That argument could also be made: It really is an empty word that people attach any meaning to that fits their current purpose. But that’s really not my argument. It seems you’re familiar with syntax vs semantics, so I’ll omit that wall of text. But, one example:
The elephant eats the peanut.
The peanut eats the elephant.
Both phrases are syntactically correct but the second is semantically incorrect. A peanut cannot eat an elephant. It’s the same with at least both words, humane and inhumane, in tandem. They are semantically incorrect. Humane denotes a set of human characteristics (yet, it is a real subset). The in in inhumane implies there is no intersection with the set of human characteristics. Yet, everything labeled as inhumane is part of the set of human chracteristics. The in in inhumane also implies it is the opposite of humane, which makes no sense if they are both subsets of the same set. No matter how you turn it, both terms are logical contradictions. And that’s also why (imho), whenever they are used (at least most of the time), the statements containing them are nonsense.
It’s not boilerplate. If you want to argue semantics that is the heart of the conversation. If we can’t agree on how things are defined then we cannot begin discussion on specific definitions. Languages evolve over time and if we aren’t in agreement about that then there is no point in debating semantics.
To the point in your second paragraph, I would argue that we attach humane to a subset of characteristics that we view as desirable for a human to have and inhumane as undesirable characteristics for a human to have. The words have nothing to do with what characteristics actually do belong to humans. It is nonsensical to even talk about a subset of characteristics that belong to humanity as a whole since every individual is different and can display various characteristics. You can also view it from the lens of inhumane being another way of saying “your actions are so reprehensible that I have a hard time viewing you as a human”. We hold ourselves to a higher standard than the rest of the animal kingdom because of our ability to reason. We have a higher moral agency. If you do something like murder and you know it is wrong you aren’t acting in a way that strives towards the ideal of what being a human is that we have created as a society. By calling that person or their actions inhumane you aren’t literally saying that they aren’t a human or that a human can’t perform those actions. Obviously they are and they can. I have literally never heard anyone try to argue that the word “humane” means or should mean the same thing as “human” and “inhumane” means or should mean the same thing as “not human”.