Is it a tautology to speak about human beings and cruelty?
In the Kantian sense of analytic propositions as opposed to synthetic statements — the former, where the predicate is already conceptually identified in the subject, whereas in the latter, the concept as proposed in the predicate is not already contained in the subject (e.g,, the statement, “Some dogs are short-haired” is an example of a synthetic statement because the concept of “short-haired-ness” is not necessarily contained in the concept of a “dog”; on the other hand, the statement, “All husbands are married” is an example of an analytic statement, because the idea of “being married” is already identified within the concept of “husband”, no matter even in the modern conceptual alterations of gender-identity).
Back to the question of the redundancy/tautology — of “human cruelty”; for, one may argue, cruelty as a concept is already founded in the definition of a human being. Do other species exhibit cruelty? Or, if we think they do, is it just an anthropomorphic projection? For, predators don’t play with their prey; they kill not to torture but to consume.
The annals of human history are replete with human cruelty. We like to mythologize about the dignity of human beings, the sophistication of civilizations great and small, but the plain fact is that cruelty is a human characteristic undeniably rampant, no matter the beautiful bouquets we attempt to cover the bloody footprints with.
For Federal employees and U.S. Postal Service workers who suffer from a medical condition where the medical condition no longer allows you to continue in your career, cruelty by your agency should be expected. Why would you think that human beings would respond and act otherwise? Is it because there is also “human compassion” and “human empathy”? Are those synthetic propositions, or analytic ones?
Whichever, you will likely need a FERS Disability Retirement Lawyer to make sure that your disability retirement application before the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is a synthetic proposition, because the statement, “Your Disability Retirement application is approved” is one where the predicate is not necessarily contained in the subject, whereas the analytic statement — the one which is more common — is the statement, “Your Disability Retirement is denied”, where the concept of a “denial” is very often contained in the subject of your disability retirement application.
Robert R. McGill
Lawyer exclusively representing Federal and Postal employees to secure their Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.