The Appeal to Humanity Fallacy

TLDR: When they say it is for humanity, for the people, for everyone, they never say which humans, which group, which place, who is in and who is out. Without that split it means nothing. It is PR, not care. Real care is specific: each human, wherever they are, whatever they think, served how they want.

Everyone says it. Every politician. Every leader. Every company.

We are doing it for the people. We are doing it for everyone. Blah blah blah for humanity.

The trick is what they leave out

And yet they never specify exactly what part of humanity they mean. Which group. Which place. Which set of people. That omission is the whole trick.

It is most laughable when a politician says it to his own party room. Or a CEO says it to his own locked platform. Or anyone talking to one small tribe while implying the whole. We are doing it for everyone, said to a room that is very much not everyone.

This is not argumentum ad populum. That one says many agree therefore it is true. This is different. This is the unbound universal. Your own phrasing was already the definition: there is no partition of what humanity consists of and who we people are.

There are two moves inside it.

First: reification. Hypostatization. Humanity gets framed as a subject capable of wanting. One big organism that clearly prefers one thing over another. Which conveniently happens to be exactly what the speaker already wants. And at the same time they claim they represent exactly that.

Second: the laundered we. Their "we" is never their "humanity". It is their tribe, laundered. As Schmitt put it on page 54: "whoever invokes humanity wants to cheat."

Who decides what "everyone" wants

Watch how it works in the wild. The slogan says people means everything. Then the narrowing comes with little text at the bottom. Who qualifies. What behavior is expected. Which opinion is allowed. The generalization can imply whatever they want later, when you actually point at it.

It is just a fancy word they use to get political points. Everyone accepts it as proof of goodwill without asking what they really mean.

Look at practice and the hypocrisy shows fast. Slogan says for all. Action shows discrimination. Some users blocked. Some voices cut. Some standard forced on everyone. If you want to know what their humanity means, do not listen to the speech. Watch who gets served and who gets filtered.

Language gives it away.
"Should serve everyone, humanity as a whole" versus "should serve each human."

The first one sounds big and has a hidden owner. Owned collectively means somebody decides how it serves everyone. Somebody defines what humanity even is. Somebody holds the final choice.

The second one is very clear. Serves each human how exactly they want, how they prefer, taking their interest in mind. No abstract whole on top. For each means each decides for themselves. Providing for each means providing equally so each can decide what they want. That is the point: public good and freedom in one move.

So ask the pressure question every time: which human exactly? You? Or me? Or somebody else? Who actually has final decision, choice and preference in that matter? Human should be empowered, human should stay in control, human should have choice. Great. Which human holds the control here?

What about bad people?

Yes. Them too. Serving everyone means every human means also including the bad people. That is the point. No silent value judgment about whose preferences are good or bad or whatever else.

Serving everyone equally means serving bad actors too as users. What it does not mean is that bad acts go unlimited. Bad actors still get limited through other means.

Because this is when you start to make value judgment of who you include and who you do not, and therefore you have to explicitly tell who is in your implied group. Once you filter, you owe a list. Who is in. Who is out. Why. That list is the real argument. Demand it.

That list is also the test of whether somebody truly cares about humanity or not. Work it as a loop. First charge by words: when they say it is for humanity, immediate mistrust. Then check actions: who can actually use it, who is blocked, what standard was forced. Then return to the words with a verdict. If the actions serve each human how they want, the words hold. If not, the words were the cheat.

Fake care: we do it for humanity, trust us, details later.

Real care: we built it for every human wherever they are, whatever they do, whatever their moral character is, whatever their preferences or opinions are. Accessible for literally everyone. Regardless of what we think about them. Regardless of whether they are in our political camp or in our group or in any other group.

Only the second one truly does something for everyone and can back it with actual action. No loyalty test. No forced common standard. No "use it how we say or leave". The person decides how they want it.

What to do with this:

1. Notice the move. They claim the appeal to humanity, that they are on human side, that they act for the greater whole, while they sneak in their own idea of what this group is, who is included, who is excluded, and how this group is expected to behave.

2. Demand the partition. Make them explain what they truly mean. Who exactly. Where? Included. Excluded. Who decides and how. So everyone clearly understands and the lies and manipulations get caught and shown.

3. If they dodge, judge by actions. Their actions will show their discriminatory nature. Look at who can actually use it, who is blocked, what standard was forced. We have plenty of examples of what non-discrimination looks like: each individual decides for their own means, without anyone forcing a common standard on them.

Slogan is the open door speech. Action is the fine print. Then hold them accountable and unable to hide behind fancy slogans.