"Indeed, people speak sometimes about the 'animal' cruelty of man, but that is terribly unjust and offensive to animals, no animal could ever be so cruel, so artfully, so artistically cruel. A tiger simply gnaws and tears, that is all he can do. It would never occur to him to nail people by their ears overnight, even if he were able to do it." (Dostoevsky, Brothers Karamazov (Pevear and Volokhonsky,) Rebellion p. 238.)
Interstingly the title inhumane seems to appertain to those dispicable, unimaginable, abominable acts which could never be conceived of as human. However, when do these premeditated, artfully torturous exploits occur naturally in the animal world? The human capacity to reason - the boundary between the man and animal kingdoms, must neccessarily include the human propensity for evil. Not only the ability to do and understand that which is evil, but imagine, carry out and moreover pleasure in an artfully crafted evil scheme. Does not our capacity to be evil, and appallingly so, further separate us from animals? Our ability to dub an act "inhumane" makes us men and women of reason. Shouldn't then our ability to create these "inhumane" acts distinguish us further? I would argue the human aptitude for evil adequately differentiates us from the animal world - thus making Michael Vick the quintessential man. "Inhumane," that which we cannot conceive of being, but indelibly, assuredly are.