Hmm. Interesting appeal-to-nature going on in both the point and counterpoint. One essentialist, the other idealist. Both povs are is-ought-ing all over themselves.
should do a quadpartite indexing here. I think point and counterpoint are each deeply humane and deeply inhumane. There's like four important positions all going on at the same time, two of which are explicit. And then all dialoguing or not with each other.
Care to lay it out? I'm not seeing the humane/inhumane angle here since it appears to me the nature of "human" and therefore "humane" (as in, "behavior exhibiting consideration for the sanctity of the human" or something) is what they're disagreeing about.