International humanitarian law is characterised as a balance between military necessity and humanity. Focussing on the international humanitarian law rules that govern the conduct of hostilities – the law of targeting (LoT), this study seeks to understand what it means to balance these two very different principles and how the LoT does this. To this end, I analyse uncontroversial practices and possibilities that exist in LoT discourse, to understand the role that military necessity and humanity play in the LoT. My analysis uncovers unrecognised roles played by military necessity in the LoT – as an epistemic privilege that insulates military practice from external scrutiny and limits the LoT’s humanitarian possibilities; and as an agent of change that accommodates military requirements at the expense of humanitarian interests. Correspondingly, I highlight unappreciated limitations upon the possibilities of humanity, including the possibility that the LoT prioritises the well-being of armed soldiers over that of helpless civilians; and I trace the source of these limitations to the conceptualisation of humanity as a charitable obligation without corresponding rights. From this recognition of the unrecognised roles of military necessity and unappreciated limitations upon humanity, I draw the conclusion that the metaphor of balance grossly mischaracterises the reality of the LoT. In practice, humanity is merely a fig leaf that justifies the pursuit of military necessity.