This concept is... exceedingly philosophically problematic, and one of those things that might be cute on paper if you don't think about it too much, but rather

This concept is... exceedingly philosophically problematic, and one of those things that might be cute on paper if you don't think about it too much, but rather horrific if you do. We should keep in mind the positions many of these philosophers were in. They often come from aristocracy classes and look down on commoners. They had access to better resources and were not ailed with problems, and therefore had no trouble defining people who are weaker, sicker, lower, smaller, uglier, etc., as "lesser". It's not a coincidence that many philosophers were not even able to register women as people. The downtrodden person is easy to look down upon as they have been damaged. No room for complexity or messiness that's inherent in the lives of most people. These philosophers liked living by ideals, but human life is not ideal, and creating these ideals simply gates away most humans. If anything, the concept is non-human, but in its nature, Luciferous, as it separates off a "worthy" elite and throws away the rest. Most normal people do not survive the judgment of a philosopher. A hunching person is human. A person with damaged limbs is a human. An older person who cannot stand upright is human. If you assign value to posture, then you have forgotten these people and flagged them as unworthy, and that makes you not human more than anything discussed in this article. It is that thought which is immoral, it is that thought which makes the slave, and not at all the posture of the slave. The excuse that comes after, not the origin of the evil.