The the great majority of us live within the area bounded by the First Standard Deviation (+/-).
The question was asked "Where is the line between humanity and inhumanity?"
It's asked a lot. Has been for thousands of years. Without going into a history of philosophy--well, and exhaustive history--we need only take a look at the ideas that motivated the formation of this country. I don't think today's high school history teachers present enough information about the political state of the colonies prior to our Revolutionary War. There were some extremely significant ideas posited by Rene Descartes, 1596-1650, the most revolutionary of which was his statement, "cogito ergo sum". I think, therefore, I am.
To the casual observer this simple statement of truth may be seemingly insignificant. But for those who look to the simplicity of the apodictic argument, the results are shattering to ideologies and religions. This simple phrase codified the expression of will in Martin Luther's, 1483-1546, posting at Wurms. Luther's criticism of the Church was based upon his own reading of the Bible. I think, therefore, I am.
Apostacy and submission. If you will, the Yin and Yang of the Human Condition. It is with a certain amount of humorous intent that I submit this link from a Protestant which describes the "sin" of apostacy. Luther was able to tip-toe through the brambles of apostacy and submission. ("I am ready, and will rather obey than perform miracles in my justification.") So, here's a Catholic link on Martin Luther, and a contrary Protestant link on submission.
For religious and political ideologues, apostacy and submission were, and remain the primary tools for enforcement of a system of hegemony. Take this from Canadienne (why won't they learn to spell?) Ghost of a Flea:
"I am delighted to present Flea-readers with two heaping scoops of William F. Buckley. His subject, an interview with Kenneth Minogue* on the question: "Is there a conservative ideology?" Semantic games follow; to keep out of the tall grass it is useful to keep a Gramscian use of the term "ideology" in mind. To Antonio Gramsci, an "ideology" is a system of worldviews, beliefs and assumptions which provide a symbolic explanation and underpinning for the rule of one class (an "hegemonic" class) over another (a "subaltern" class). A feudal mode of production, consequently, will encompass a feudal ideology in which the rule of the aristocracy over the peasantry is ordained by God. Here the social order on Earth is mirrored by - and indeed is a reflection or extension of - a transcendent social order. A common mistake among jejeune leftists is to imagine this state of affairs is some sort of trickery, i.e. Pharaoh knows perfectly well he is not a god but he and his family and the priests need everybody to think he is a god to keep the beer and pyramids rolling in. Far from it."
What Descartes manages so well in three words takes thousands from others. Cogito, ergo Sum is the single most revolutionary statement in the history of the world. No longer does it require an externally imposed ideology to justify existence, right or wrong. Freedom, for thought, from the external.
It's going to take John Locke, 1632-1704, to put together the consequence of State and the antecedents of apostacy and submission into a Rational form for governance. Here's a rather good, quick summary of Locke's Second Treatise, while I recommend you disregard the conclusion drawn by its author. This guy does a remarkable job of reduction, but it's clear his professor let him know what conclusions needed to be made to "get the grade". It's okay with me, I had a couple of psycho profs who wouldn't mind the argumentation as long as the conclusion stuck to the syllabus. So, disregarding the writer's last nine graphs, look at what Locke has come up with. (I can't believe he did such a good job writing about Locke without seeing the logical incongruities he was able to introduce in his conclusory remarks to arrive at a "politically correct" conclusion.)
"A civil society is an entirely human endeavor constructed out of a consenting populous with the sole intention of preserving personal assets and is thereby restricted in the reach of its power. Locke’s argument concludes that man directly or tacitly gives himself to the rule of a state with an established purpose to “no other end but the peace, safety, and the public good of the people.” Such a public good is to be known as the entitlement and security of private property and the commonwealth has a duty to the preservation of these basic rights. Locke holds the protection of assets equivalent to the protection of life, and in principle, he believes it is to the benefit of all men to remove themselves from the state of nature and enter into a secure civil authority to remedy and protect the inconveniences of the original state of nature."sic
"...he that will not give just occasion to think that all government in the world is the product only of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules but that of beasts, where the strongest carries it...must of necessity find another rise of government, another original of political power..."--The Second Treatise of Civil Government.
We submit to the State as it serves its purpose, as distinct from that of the State of Nature. So the above curve can be viewed as the Submission Curve. In a Normally Distributed World, the Bell Curve works well to show how populations "are". "This theorem states that the mean of any set of variates with any distribution having a finite mean and variance tends to the normal distribution. Many common attributes such as test scores, height, etc., follow roughly normal distributions, with few members at the high and low ends and many in the middle." Even if skewed, the value of sd remains constant, neh?
Not only do we submit to the State, we do so voluntarily. We do it voluntarily and rationally.
This is the anvil and forge of the state. Where we wright state from apostacy and submission,
freedom and slavery, the confluence of Libertarian and Totalitarian. That is to say, most of us accept limits to our behaviour. Most of us subscribe to the belief in limits to our government. In the United States these beliefs are incorporated within our Constitution.
So, I would posit that the line between humanity and inhumanity is to be found on the left. It is to be found in those who would offer you slavery and submission. Where disagreement is met with intolerance.
Here is what I find most disturbing about those on the Left. It is the attempt to re-impose ideology over the political process. It is the attempt to invoke spirituality into the political debate. It's done with fear, with pity, with lies and distortions. It takes the theme of the Common Man and orchestrates the discovery of the Needful Few. Rich versus poor. Rights versus obligations. My being the final arbiter of what is good for me versus the Government as The Final Arbiter of what is good...Saint Peter at the Golden Gate.