“Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed.” – Herman Melville
We could further define humanity by comparing extremes such as
- the safe to the unsafe?
- the well to the ill?
- the civilised to the uncivilised?
- the educated to the uneducated?
- the kind to the cruel?
- the healthy to the unhealthy?
- the cared for to the uncared for?
- the caring to the uncaring?
- the honest to the dishonest?
- the legal to the illegal?
Or we could rely upon more subjective comparisons such as
- the rational to the irrational?
- the rational to the unthinking?
- the rational to the superstitious?
- the rational to the religious?
- the rational to the fanatical?
- the rational to the psychopathic?
I am left with two questions
Have the poor, the unsafe, the ill, the uncivilised, the uneducated, the cruel, the unhealthy, the uncared for, the uncaring, the underfed or even the dishonest caused more harm than the irrational, the unthinking, the superstitious, the religious, the fanatical and the psychopaths?
And which condition has had the most impact upon the fortunes of humanity?