The fact that many of the things we find to be of good character or virtue in a person are that which help meliorate against the many things we find to be bad in people makes me think misanthropy is not entirely wrong. A courageous person may go fight in a war - a war created by humans. A compassionate person may go becomes a medical aid in a poverty-stricken country - a country created this way by corrupt and selfish humans. Humans create disasters that have to be fixed by other humans.

But I think we have the capability to acting otherwise and having good intentions. A lot of misanthropic beliefs stem from conceptions of humans as being selfish and egoistic, always out for themselves and ready to stomp all over everyone else if it comes to it. That is empirically false and ethically repugnant and the fact that we recognize it as ethically repugnant means we aren't secretly egoistic turds.

What would you count as evidence for and against misanthropy?

For could be: War, inequality, greed, sexism, shallowness, animal abuse and so on.

Against could be: Types of altruism, charity work, campaigning, welfare and so on. — Andrew4Handel

Evidence for or against misanthropy would have to be things universally found in Homo sapiens sapiens.

Therefore, hierarchies, sexism, inequality, etc. could not be evidence either way because there have been cultures that were egalitarian.

What would you count as evidence for and against misanthropy? — Andrew4Handel

How can misanthropy, a dis-like, be right or wrong? 'Subject to evidence'? People will like or dislike as they find themselves in the world through their experiences. It doesn't seem to me an ethical matter.

This issue is around whether the beliefs causing Misanthropy are false. I am not talking about a matter of taste here. Someone might dislike humans regardless of their conduct. I suppose also I am asking here about what hope we can have in our species.

I have done CBT and part of that is challenging your thoughts so you have to evaluate whether you are responding appropriately to situations or something like that. But if you have negative thoughts and they are valid then what?

Evidence for or against misanthropy would have to be things universally found in Homo sapiens sapiens. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I think you could dislike any species. I think the problem with humans though is that they can act with the most deliberation and knowledge so their behaviour can't be solely attributed to instincts in my opinion..

I don't think I would be misanthropic if I thought all behaviour was just instinct and hormones but I think that would be a poor analysis or gross reduction of the whole of human culture.

Is misanthropy a result of esteeming one's self too highly? So highly, in fact, that other people are blunt, dull, stupid, and ugly, and by comparison worthy of contempt?

It seems like misanthropy begins as a reaction by the individual.

But if you have negative thoughts and they are valid then what? — Andrew4Handel

It depends what sort of negative thought.

'I feel miserable' is a negative thought and it can be valid, but CBT teaches us how we can change our thinking so that it becomes invalid.

'Life is misery.' is a negative thought but it cannot be valid, because for some people life is mostly misery and for others it is not.

'Donald Trump will plunge us into nuclear war' is a negative thought, which may or may not turn out to be true. But what CBT, and the Stoicism from which it evolved, teach us is to accept that we cannot control that (unless we are one of those rare people that is in a position to influence the POTUS), dismiss it from our mind and focus on making the most of the life we have in the meantime.

Is misanthropy a result of esteeming one's self too highly? So highly, in fact, that other people are blunt, dull, stupid, and ugly, and by comparison worthy of contempt?

It seems like misanthropy begins as a reaction by the individual. — Bitter Crank

What evidence have you for this? My own experience is I have always had low self esteem I was bullied throughout childhood, abused by my parents among other things. It took me quite some time to become misanthropic.

How much respect should we proffer for slave traders, racists, sexist and warmongers? There is a mass of cruelty in human history. You can have a low opinion of humans without thinking you yourself are exempt from negative traits.

A lack of misanthropy seems like a symptom of unwarranted optimism and rose coloured spectacles.

'Donald Trump will plunge us into nuclear war' — andrewk

One person's aberrant personality is less reason to worry than a whole group of dysfunctional people constituting a society.

I am sorry that you have had the kinds of experience you mention. Like as not, there are several routes to arrival at any strongly held view about mankind, whether that be we are despicable slobs or are destined for the stars.

I responded by asking a question, because I don't have a theory about how people become misanthropes, misogynists, misandrists, or Christ-like, for that matter. I'm would guess it is some kind of reaction. Your situation is one kind of reaction among several possibilities.

"And which of you, by being anxious, can add even one hour to their lifespan?"

Even if a whole society is dysfunctional (which is most probably not the case), you can still choose to persevere and strive for excellence (or so a Stoic would usefully say, I think).

Interestingly, one of the biggest misanthropists of all time, Louis-Ferdinand Destouches, is said to have dedicated much time to medically treating poor people (for free, by some accounts).

One person's aberrant personality is less reason to worry than a whole group of dysfunctional people constituting a society. — Andrew4Handel

Except when a handful (just a few) are able to instigate a nuclear attack. (That might not end up being an all-out nuclear war, but it would still be a bad thing).

I agree, but Stoicism / CBT has an answer for that, which is to train oneself to worry only about the things one can change.

Your situation is one kind of reaction among several possibilities — Bitter Crank

You seemed to go straight for the Misanthropes are arrogant position. Does that say something about your personality type that you would prefer to reject misanthropy and preserve a positive view of life?
Like you want to see misanthropy as a symptom of an individual not society.

I want to challenge my misanthropy but things in the news and on the internet undermine that. Some misanthropists might delight in a sense of superiority. But that seems a bit implausible because misanthropy is a dislike (or disapproval/distrust etc) of ones own species which embraces the self

Imagine a scenario where you are off work ill for a couple of months then you read an article criticising people who take long sick leave as idle scroungers and underneath a segment of people agreeing. How Would you feel about that? Knowing that at least a segment of society was ignorant and hostile towards you? Or If you read on line racism and so on. Even if these people are a small minority it is hard to put a positive spin on it or be uplifted.

It seems to only take a small or moderate group of people to bring society down. But maybe it is actually more what with overpopulation, climate change and so on.

It is hard if you're not thick skinned.

In an ironic way it seems that misanthropes are interested in humans but being stoical might entail blocking out negative input to not confront the full spectrum of society.

I am a negative person but I find positive people I meet have limited interest in world news, inequality etc. It is not that they don't care at all but they are selective. I think sometimes you need to face a situation in stark detail however unpleasant to change it.

It is one thing say to give money to charity but then to never have seen a photo of a starving child. But yeah I probably over expose myself to misery lol..

Except when a handful (just a few) are able to instigate a nuclear attack. (That might not end up being an all-out nuclear war, but it would still be a bad thing). — Bitter Crank

But some of these people were voted in by millions of voters.

I am depressed when dangerous or callous people get voted in but that also means people did support them.

I think there is a problem with shifting responsibility onto one person because it then means possible apathy or transference and so on. Scapegoating is a classic political ploy as well. How many leaders will say "You the people are the problem!". They are more likely to say "The work shy are the problem" or "I support the hard working majority" or "If you want me to fight against Gay marriage I am your servant"

I don't know to what extent North Korea is controlled by a few and to what extent it is group hysteria or something. I don't see it as representative of your average society though.

NK is definitely not a typical society. It is a lot like 1984, except that the Maximum Leader Kim Il Sung is a "chubby faced maniac" as Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte called him. It's a weird place.

Of course, Trump didn't get elected all by himself. But the thing is, every since 1945 control over the use of atomic weapons has pretty much always been lodged in the presidency. And while his predecessors haven't been as fast and loose with emotional eruptions as Trump, the narrow control has always been something of a problem. We came close to using nuclear weapons during the Cuban Missile Crisis (well, they were actually Russian missiles) in 1962, and there have been a couple of incidents involving misinterpreted radar signals which could, conceivably, have led to a first strike order.

NPR carried an interview with a general who was explaining why attacking North Korea effectively would be difficult. The rockets and bombs are scattered around the country, and they are buried in tunnels. We don't have maps of the tunnels, so... where exactly is the missile hiding?

Second, if we attacked NK using surface detonations, the load of fallout passing over Japan (immediately to the east) would be heavy. Very bad.

Third, NK has a lot of chemical weapons, like Sarin, and Seoul is very close to NK guns. (There are about 20 million + people living in Seoul.) So, it wouldn't take NK very long at all to kill off a few million South Koreans, even if we blew up all their atomic bombs--which we probably can't do. For that matter, NK might be able to nuke Seoul, even after our initial attack.

My guess is that Kim Il Sung will not launch armed, or even unarmed, missiles at Guam. He might launch a couple of missiles out to sea to make us nervous, but that we can live with. The upshot of it all, the general said, is that we will probably have to accept a NK which is a nuclear power capable of hitting the US, and that there won't be much that we can do about it.

You seemed to go straight for the Misanthropes are arrogant position. — Andrew4Handel

I don't know why you feel that way -- I was only responding to what you said. You don't sound arrogant to me, and I wasn't trying to suggest that you were.

I don't think misanthropy is a society-wide phenomenon -- just because most people aren't that way. Maybe they should have darker views of human nature than they do, but they don't seem to. I don't know why, either way.

If you label yourself a misanthrope, then you've signed up for an unhealthy degree of self loathing, as hating humanity entails hating yourself as well. If you do hate yourself, then you'll have to then argue whether hating oneself is good. Framed this way, I think misanthropy looks rather silly. However, I think there's a difference between being a misanthrope and being misanthropic. I'd definitely categorize myself as being misanthropic, depending on the day I suppose, and fundamentally I do dislike humanity, but at the same time I see value in human virtue and in love, so I feel that I cannot be a full-on misanthrope. Perhaps I'm a soft misanthrope or something.

Some advice from a misathrope

Just leave them alone that is what they prefer. Dont try and be nice or to act altruisticly, they dont care.

And why am i misathropic?
Certainly nit because of war, inequality, greed, sexism. Shallowness perhaps
And your arguments against misanthrope a poor. Why?

My dogma arises from moral nhilism, rejection of good and evil which leads to a veiw of indifference. Humanity and life i general is indifferent. So that is how i am, indiffernt.

But indiffernce is differnt from "a dislike of humankind". well indiffernce is offten mistaken for disike it is not that i wish people to be unhappy so to speak im merely indifferent to wheter they are happy or not

That is my dogma

I was going to salute you for being a true nihilist until I read this:

But indiffernce is differnt from "a dislike of humankind". well indiffernce is offten mistaken for disike it is not that i wish people to be unhappy so to speak im merely indifferent to wheter they are happy or not

That is my dogma — Allthephilosophersaretaken

You need to follow your nihilistic feelings to their logical conclusion if you really wish to be one, it would seem to me. If you can't do so, it would be wiser to pull back from the brink.

@Noble dust

I do not folloow, sorry. Perhaps you could elaborate for me.

Since so much of our vocabulary is influenced by concepts of good and evil it is hard to describe moral nhilism. Emotions have the most connotations of ideas pertaining to consepts of emmotion, most things do. This often makes it hard for a moral to describe his point of veiw.

However indiffernce has no connection with morals. Unless indifference is considered a moral stand point in and of itself, that would make things complicated, but i would argue that indifference is not a moral stand point since one is indifferent to morality

If you were not refering to my indiffernce but my dogma, i say that every possible philosophical possition has dogma, no system is free of dogma perhaps the only thing free of dogma is

Cognito ergo sum

@Noble Dust

Sorry typo: emotions have conotations of morality. Love is good, anger is bad etc. most of language has conotations to morality

Since so much of our vocabulary is influenced by concepts of good and evil it is hard to describe moral nhilism. — Allthephilosophersaretaken

It's easy: no morals. Except, "moral nihilism" then becomes a contradiction.

indifference is not a moral stand point since one is indifferent to morality — Allthephilosophersaretaken

Yes, indifference as amorality is totally plausible; but it also entails total indifference to all conceptions of morality. Harm done to other persons is necessarily permissible, as an important example, within this indifferent amorality.

If you were not refering to my indiffernce but my dogma, i say that every possible philosophical possition has dogma, no system is free of dogma — Allthephilosophersaretaken

Agreed. This includes your attempt at hard nihilism, which just comes up as soft nihilism because you still need to appeal to your own dogma. Dogma suggests morals. Dogma means a set of beliefs accepted without question by a given group. Morals are inextricable from dogma as such...nihilism is inherently a-dogmatic then. So...dogma means not nihilism...nihilism means no dogma...etc...

@Noble Dust

Good points. I shall have to think about them

no morals. Except, "moral nihilism" then becomes a contradiction.

Given that you seem to value moral nhilism

I was going to salute you for being a true nihilist

How do you deal with the paradoxical contradiction i am now faced with?
Or perhaps you have rejected moral nhilism because of it, if so what have you come to favour and why?

Yes, I've rejected nihilism of any sort for those reasons, among others. For now, I've come to accept a few basic principles, while retaining a sense of ignorance: Morality exists. Morality exists because humans exist. Humans are the "noble animal", the "noble dust" of the universe. We are set apart from the rest of it (the original connotation of the word "holy"). Divine love is real. That's all for now.

It was reading the comments under this Daily Mail article that prompted me to start this thread.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4774574/Couple-benefits-furious-rejected-landlord.html?mrn_rm=rta-fallback

For could be: War, inequality, greed, sexism, shallowness, animal abuse and so on. — Andrew4Handel

Hate is never a moral disposition. If the misanthrope hates the above immoralities, then he does not morally raise himself above them by hating human beings. Wrong does not cancel out wrong.

A Darwinian version of the question would be under what social conditions could misanthropic beliefs be more adaptive than they are now (as opposed to maladaptive).

If for instance we all lived in a Cormac McCarthy novel like The Road (societal collapse), or Blood Meridian (lawless wild west) default paranoia and doubt about the intent of others might help you to survive.

Misanthropy is a post hoc rationalization for reinforcing or conserving behavior, that emerges out of any number of painful experiences where trust in others was repeatedly abused or exploited. You learn to distrust others if it generally saves you trouble (but compared to what?).

Misanthropy is not a thing that is true or false. There are examples of it, sure, but evidence of it does not amount to answering your question.

It seems to me that humans can think abstractly yet concretely about the truth and values.

So for example we have successful scientific theories that describe aspects of the world. So it seems quite possible to have an unbiased assessment of the conduct of humans.

It could be all subjective so that all that matters is one's own judgement of their experiences. However I don't think that when we talk about something like the Holocaust that it can simply be wrong based on personal feelings and otherwise neutral.

If you want a Darwinian account of everything then what is The Darwinian explanation for The Holocaust and Two World Wars.