In this chapter, I offer a critique of the much marketed principle of humanity. I try to argue that humanity stays at the periphery of the laws of armed conflict, while military necessity enjoys the prominent position because it dictates the contents of the rules of the game. I question the humanitarian side claimed in respect of the principle of proportionality. I argue that proportionally principle justifies and helps overlook the simultaneous harm to civilians, even when it is huge. Proportionality does not entail an obligation about minimizing civilian loss. Considering the overall architecture of the law, I argue that it compromises with humanitarian considerations and validates violence and suffering in several ways. Lastly, I argue that the name of the discipline (International Humanitarian Law) is flawed, deceptive and political.