Animane

To be humane is to encompass “such behaviour or disposition towards others as befits a man…a gentle or kindly in demeanour or action” (183). Is the word humane not a contradictory statement when it is a human quality to be sadistic and when humans define passion as “an intense desire or enthusiams… relating to physical suffering and pain” (186)? Sadism, a human enthusiasm for inflicting pain, suffering or humiliation on others” is a paradigm leading me to believe that the word humane may be more fitting to be renamed animane (201). An experiment testing the levels of compassion amongst monkeys, the subject monkeys were “fed only if they agreed to pull a chain that would send a painful shock to another monkey….after seeing the repercussions of their actions” a mere 87% of the monkeys continued to eat, knowing that if they did they would inflict pain on an innocent monkey (201).

One humane monkey did not eat for 14 days, refusing to harm his fellow equal. In an experiment testing guard and prisoner personality traits affecting abusive prison situations, but ultimately resulting in observing human compassion and sadistic tendencies, a similar option was given as was given to the monkeys: one may please themselves, in effect hurting others or one may not fulfill his own desires, but instead allow another to benefit by not having pain inflicted upon them. This experiment, performed at Stanford University by lead investigator Philip Zimbardo, included the involvement of 72 students with no history of instability of mental illness. 12 of the students were assigned to be guards while the other 12 were assigned to act as prisoners in a pseudo high-profile prison for two weeks. Although student “guards” were instructed not to inflict any physical pain on the “prisoners”, they were given permission to be verbally abusive and demeaning to the “prisoners” (204). The study had to be cut short at 6 days in because it was observed that the “guards” were taking on sadistic tendencies, taking pleasure in inflicting pain upon the “prisoners” while the “prisoners” were showing signs of mental instability and psychological unsoundness in response to the way that the “guards” were handling their new place of power. “In general, what [this experiment] leads to is a sense of powerlessness. That is, in this situation, [the guards] will have all the power and the [prisoners] will have none…[this experiment was a possible reflection of] the danger which lurks in the darker side of human nature” (203).



Drawing from the comparison of these two studies, it is clear that between the monkeys and the humans, the monkeys are the more humane of the two in that they show “consideration for the needs and distresses of others” while the humans show no sign of humanity or “character of being humane” (183). According to Greg Garrard, author of Ecocriticism, “humans can both be, and be compared to, animals” (171). In instances such as this prison experiment, I would interpret this belief differently than the way that it is impressed. Rather than having the connotation of the thin line between the similarities amongst animals and humans, I would argue that this may have a negative connotation in that humans can be “a brute, or beast, distinguished from man”, that humans can act as inhumane as a wild animal stalking his prey (181).



http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2268.htm

http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/MacaqueMonkey.jpg

http://api.ning.com/files/Ij2-798Cl6ABEO3t0-YwoxJx*WvrIavVBhreKF8LJJkEqCL2d8-HMOu8-dPhpFWEzp0xYI4o6A*EYS74ItEgwUB4E9TQM560/compassion.jpg