Who Defines What Humanity Is?

On page 49, a significant question is raised: "Who is anybody?"  This has so many so many possible interpretations. One interpretation involves the simple yet complicated question, "What is the meaning of life?" Depending on who one asks, each response is different. The subjective qualities of the meaning of life makes it a difficult question to answer. It can be argued that asking the identity of anyone is even more meaningful.  Many people in the Road are violent and would be considered in humane by the reader. In a post-apocalyptic society such as the one of The Road, where almost no one is "humane" by our society's definition, who is to judge what a human is? There is no more "humanity" as people know it. That might be why the violence in the novel is so normal to the characters. The man and others traveling the Road may be horrified,  but are clinging to their humanity. It is doubtful that they would inflict judgement upon the violent people; they probably only acknowledge that the violence exists and acknowledge the threat the violence poses to their survival. If there are no characters to inflict their judgement on the violence, is there a point to deeming whether the violence is unjustified or justified?
                 If people actually went through an apocalypse, our definition of humanity would change, and nobody should be judged for what extremes they would go to in order to survive. In different ways,  everybody is trying to survive in The Road, but the reader judges the characters by his or her standards. The reader makes a definition for humanity, inflicting his or her judgement on the characters. But if there weren't people in our society to define what makes a person "humane", there would be no point in judgement. That is what makes something subjective. One might argue that the wife's suicide is inhumane, yet another may say that she is more in touch with her emotions than any other character introduced so far.
          The author uses the narrator to ask these questions, which in itself is significant. The narrator is depicting the lives of the characters to the reader. The reader knows the story through the narrator's perceptions. Even the narrator questions what "humanity" is, proving one of the main themes of the novel so far: hopelessness. But does not having hope make one inhumane? Maybe clinging to whatever trace of hope one has is a natural human quality. Do the violent people lack hope? Is that why they survive in the way that they do? Again, all of these questions' answers would vary depending on who one asks. Such is the value of perception. That is how the novel contradicts itself. When there are no "humane" people to make judgements, does their depiction of life really matter? Are they so out of touch with their "humanity" that they cease to become human? How can a narrator tell a story when he or she him or herself may not even be a "human", as our society defines one?