Is misanthropy morally justifiable?

[Faye]

The title is the question: is misanthropy morally justifiable? For those of you who do not know, misanthropy is the hatred of humanity. For it to be morally justifiable would be for it to be the right thing to do.

So what I am asking is whether or not there are any reasons why being a misanthropist is not the right thing to do.

I suppose you could make the case that a person who hates humanity will not act with love toward them, but I'm wondering why this should be so? Do humans deserve love? I mean, do pigs deserve love? Do donkeys deserve love? What makes humans so much better than these other animals? We slaughter pigs in mass and consume them happily, and almost nobody spares more than a second of thought on the suffering they endured.

I guess nobody thinks much about the suffering of humans in the world, either. Those suffering from starvation, preventable illnesses, and other things that are in humanities' capacity to remedy.

But very few people think about these things. They sit themselves down in front of the television and content themselves only with the knowledge of Dr. House's latest exploits... or whatever. So why not hate them?

People will say that we should love, but all the reasons they will give for love are selfish. I do not care that people 'love' and are altruistic because it is to their advantage. Altruism is a form of selfishness due to generalized reciprocity.

Maybe I just hate people because they fail to do the impossible.

 

[Chessie]

Heeeheee...I can't say I hate humanity. It would require far too much energy to hate that many people. I spend my hates on smaller things and more pleasantly on things I can affect directly.

While I do consider it highly likely I or someone like me could create some terrible biological weapon in my basement that rendered thousands of persons sterile, I also consider it very silly.

Misanthropic behavior doesn't just include a hatred of humanity. It includes abandonment of the social values of your society as well. One might say someone who is Muslim in a Christian society is a misanthrope.

Humans are some of my best friends. [Portions edited, per staff discretion--Arbygil.]

Being a misanthrope could be argued to be the only moral decision there is if you look at life from the perspective of someone who holds the Social Contract as an absolute incontrovertible moral vessel. People shouldn't hurt each other and by existing, they take away from one another.

We all know that the Social Contract, while very noble, is not a perfect moral construct. Nor is the Golden Rule. These are ideals and when people get all wrapped up in ideals as morals, they end up doing rather horrifyingly amoral things. Certainly everyone being a Christly Christian would be an awesome thing (although I myself would probably prefer a barbed wire enema) but when people begin to make the judgment that those who aren't are evil then things just get all fucked up.

You can hate humanity but one of my prime rules is 'If you aren't prepared to fix it then you aren't allowed to complain about it.'

 

[Faye]

Misanthropic behavior doesn't just include a hatred of humanity. It includes abandonment of the social values of your society as well. One might say someone who is Muslim in a Christian society is a misanthrope.

Why do you think that this is the case?

I cannot single-handedly affect humanity, and to kill anyone would be to defeat the entire purpose of this tirade.




Also, a couple of your comments regarding penises and the barbed wire are a bit over the top and you should save things like that for the mature section, I think (at the very least, and for my sake).

 

[Chessie]

Hey, if you want to explore misanthropy you better be prepared to meet a few people who take it farther than you do.

I use words as my weapon of choice. Managing to get someone whose just launched this incredible 'tirade' regarding how much they hate humanity to actually object to something I say out of shock...that is the finest compliment you can pay me.

Don't bother saying you weren't shocked. You wouldn't have picked those sentences out if you hadn't felt a twinge and right there I get to smile.

You're only willing to take misanthropy as far as it inconveniences you. Take it a step farther and you'll find yourself wanting to shut the door on things that scare you like the possibility that you are every villain you've ever condemned.

 

[invisible]

woah!! really?!

 

[TinyBubbles]

Misanthropy is an attitude; its eventual repercussions could be said to be moral or immoral, but not the attitude itself. A person could genuinely care about people and want them to be safe and happy, but unless that extends to real, constructive action, or at least encouraging words which will motivate them to take positive steps, their caring is irrelevant. It affects no one but themselves. Likewise with misanthropy. Thing is, attitudes like these often are expressed in some tangible way in the real world; people really do get affected by others who are chronically misanthropic (or people-loving), and it does change how much you're willing to help others & in what capacity, so to that extent I'd say yes, you do have a moral imperative to ensure your attitude doesn't hurt people.

As for whether humans deserve love, and if so whether they deserve more than other living creatures, I'd say nobody really deserves anything, but we help each other for 2 reasons:
1. Cooperation helps us all to survive
2. We can relate to each other's pain, and to a human's pain more readily than an animal's. It has less to do with humans deserving love (or more love) in my opinion, and more to do with the fact that we can more readily picture ourselves in another human's shoes, and consequently imagine their suffering. Being sensitive to others' pain would naturally make you reluctant to cause more of it. And it's harder to psychologically distance yourself from the suffering of another person than an animal (or a plant).

I agree that altruism is selfish for the reason you mentioned, but it's a "good" kind of selfishness because it's mutually beneficial. And in my experience, when it comes to morals, people can surprise you. The ones who claim to be good and loving are sometimes the most destructive, & vice versa.

Good thread btw =)

 

[Faye]

Hey, if you want to explore misanthropy you better be prepared to meet a few people who take it farther than you do.

I use words as my weapon of choice. Managing to get someone whose just launched this incredible 'tirade' regarding how much they hate humanity to actually object to something I say out of shock...that is the finest compliment you can pay me.

Don't bother saying you weren't shocked. You wouldn't have picked those sentences out if you hadn't felt a twinge and right there I get to smile.

You're only willing to take misanthropy as far as it inconveniences you. Take it a step farther and you'll find yourself wanting to shut the door on things that scare you like the possibility that you are every villain you've ever condemned.

But I don't want to meet people. I don't like them. That is part of my point. And if they want to 'take it further', that is their problem, not mine. I'm discussing an attitude here, not a plan of action. I'm not contemplating starting a misanthropist club that meets every Tuesday night at 7 pm. That would be an oxymoron, to say the least...

Shock is not as good a word as annoyed. I am fine with shocking people if they want it, but to subject people to unpalatable imagery when they were not expecting it, especially if they are not used to such things, is rude in my opinion. I guess I felt embarrassed for anyone who might be reading your reply and feel disgusted because of it.

No, not much you can say will shock me personally, but knowing that it might shock others or create an uncomfortable environment for them bothers me because I feel somewhat responsible for the direction of the thread given that I created it.

woah!! really?!

Eh, I don't know. Don't take things too seriously. I still like a lot of people personally, but I hate how animalistic humans are.



I'll have to get back to April later, but good post [MENTION=1926]April[/MENTION].

 

[perpetual_liar]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that misanthropy is too much of a generalization to be morally correct or incorrect.
I suppose it really depends on the reason a person has for being a misanthrope. They could hate humans for killing the earth, for being animalistic, for having the ability to do such negative things to each other for no reason in particular, and yet that same person could love an idol for that cause, which is rather contradictory.

However, there will always be an argument against whatever reason someone has to justify the morality or immorality of their views.

A misanthrope could also be viewed in many different ways, depending on the situation the word is found in.
Maybe in that situation, everyone is misanthropic, maybe just one person.

Perception and perspective give words their meaning.


(P.S. Really good thread!)

 

[randomsomeone]

I don't think misanthropy is morally justifiable. It may be a phase we understandably stumble into...in this case it is something to move past. It represents a partial, limited view and does not consider the entire scope of the matter.

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

You can justify anything. Even if it's a bulletproof position, it doesn't mean people will except it.

Typically, the very definition of immoral is anything against humanity.

Do humans deserve love? I mean, do pigs deserve love? Do donkeys deserve love? What makes humans so much better than these other animals?

We don't love pigs as much as humans because pigs are in no position to take over the world. My point is that we have this idea of morality which we hypocritically apply conditionally to our own species.

We'll reconsider our love of any species that would actually pose a threat as we develop a mass case of stockholm's syndrome.

I'm not saying this is all it takes. We have selfish genes. We want humans to prevail, and even further, our own race, and beyond that, our community, family, etc.

 

[Nixie]

immoral: defying moral principles: contrary to accepted moral principle

 

[magister343]

Hating one's fellow man is not justifiable, but hating societal norms sure is.


Of course, "morally" technically means "by custom," which likely makes morally justifiable the opposite of justifiable in this case.

 

[randomsomeone]

Love or not, all living things deserve respect, which is no small thing.

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

immoral: defying moral principles: contrary to accepted moral principle

I think you used the word you're defining in the definition

 

[Nixie]

No just saying that immoral isn't really defined as anything against humanity but rather things against the values that humans believe in and is a subjective term. The definition isn't mine.

 

[Faye]

Here comes a multi-quote. Ah I missed April's and will have to get it in another post.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that misanthropy is too much of a generalization to be morally correct or incorrect.
I suppose it really depends on the reason a person has for being a misanthrope. They could hate humans for killing the earth, for being animalistic, for having the ability to do such negative things to each other for no reason in particular, and yet that same person could love an idol for that cause, which is rather contradictory.

However, there will always be an argument against whatever reason someone has to justify the morality or immorality of their views.

A misanthrope could also be viewed in many different ways, depending on the situation the word is found in.
Maybe in that situation, everyone is misanthropic, maybe just one person.

Perception and perspective give words their meaning.


(P.S. Really good thread!)

It isn't necessarily a generalization. It is more like a reverse universal instantiation. Every particular case shares the same characteristics because each case is a human being.

So you are adopting a strong subjectivist point of view by saying what you're saying in the bold part. First of all, does meaning exist without words? Second, if that is the case, then wouldn't to accept that meaning is determined by perspective (that meaning is subjective) to adopt a nihilist position?

The result of subjectivisim is nihilism and the destruction of any discussion of value-judgments, hence the avoiding of philosophy. It is common in the social sciences to take this attitude, but I guarantee that if you press people on it, unless they really are nihilists (which would be scary), that they will at some point have to accept that meaning is more than just a matter of perspective.

Or should anything be tolerated as long as people decide they are okay with it, no matter what that thing is?

I don't think misanthropy is morally justifiable. It may be a phase we understandably stumble into...in this case it is something to move past. It represents a partial, limited view and does not consider the entire scope of the matter.

What would the entire scope of the matter be?

You can justify anything. Even if it's a bulletproof position, it doesn't mean people will except it.

Typically, the very definition of immoral is anything against humanity.

We don't love pigs as much as humans because pigs are in no position to take over the world. My point is that we have this idea of morality which we hypocritically apply conditionally to our own species.

We'll reconsider our love of any species that would actually pose a threat as we develop a mass case of stockholm's syndrome.

I'm not saying this is all it takes. We have selfish genes. We want humans to prevail, and even further, our own race, and beyond that, our community, family, etc.

It doesn't matter in this instance whether or not people accept it. I'm trying to think why I should reject it; I have already accepted it as a result of whatever processes made me feel this way. It might be the case that I want to challenge sentiment with rationality, insofar as those are separable. Maybe that isn't possible; I don't know.

I can hate humans without being against them, can't I? Just because I truly despise someone doesn't mean that I would not take their interests to heart out of a sense of duty, responsibility, stewardship, or whatever other reason. I don't have to love what I do in order to do it, and I don't have to love people in order to help them. I don't see why morality would need to be dependent upon love or hate because moral action is not necessarily dependent upon these sentiments. It often is, but even more often other factors become more important.

As for loving things because they pose a threat; that is interesting. Is that not even more a reason to hate our species? Because they would use their love as an exploitative means?

immoral: defying moral principles: contrary to accepted moral principle

Any examples?

Hating one's fellow man is not justifiable, but hating societal norms sure is.


Of course, "morally" technically means "by custom," which likely makes morally justifiable the opposite of justifiable in this case.

Why isn't hating one's fellow man justifiable, and how can we separate societal norms from humanity? Aren't our norms rooted in our human nature to some extent? For example, isn't it the case that patriarchy has emerged basically universally in human societies? We could have matriarchies, but for some reason we chose patriarchies whenever our societies hit a certain point. This is only one example though.

Love or not, all living things deserve respect, which is no small thing.

Okay, respect is not the same thing as love.

No just saying that immoral isn't really defined as anything against humanity but rather things against the values that humans believe in and is a subjective term. The definition isn't mine.

This is a serious problem for this discussion.