"We tolerate shapes in human beings that would horrify us if we saw them in a horse"

Dean Inge’s observation reflects deeper cultural attitudes toward human physical diversity and the standards society applies to different species. Human bodies come in a wide range of shapes and sizes, exhibiting features that can deviate significantly from idealized norms. Yet, within the human community, those differences, though sometimes subject to stigma, are largely accepted as part of the spectrum of human variation. By contrast, when considering animals like horses, there is an expectation of adherence to specific forms regarded as "correct". A horse with a misshapen leg, an overly long back, or any other significant deviation from breed standards provokes immediate concern, even horror, because such irregularities are often associated with illness, disability, or flawed breeding.

The comparison Dean Inge draws is provocative: what humans accept—or at least accommodate—in themselves is intolerable in the animals under their care. This difference reveals several unsettling truths. First, it points to the constructed nature of aesthetic and functional norms. In animals, especially those bred for certain purposes or appearances, deviations are a cause for alarm and may prompt interventions ranging from veterinary treatment to culling. In humans, while there is certainly judgment based on appearance, there is also an underlying recognition of intrinsic worth that transcends form.

Moreover, the quote speaks to the limits of empathy and the implication of functionalism: humans grant themselves an allowance for imperfection that they are unwilling to extend elsewhere. The line indirectly challenges the logic of “perfection” and beauty generally, suggesting that standards are not fixed truths but cultural artifacts, mutable and often arbitrary. It exposes a subtle but profound hypocrisy that invites a reevaluation of judgments—why do certain differences repel us in one context but not another?

Dean Inge ultimately compels his audience to reflect on the roots of their aesthetic and moral judgments, suggesting that compassion, recognition, and acceptance should begin by interrogating the standards we hold and the reasons we hold them.