Undeniably there are some good individuals, and some really good individuals.

Undeniably there's no hope at all for humanity as a whole.

...because of the natural-selection-caused social-animal instincts of most individuals. (e.g. Remember P.T. Barnum's great insight that there's a sucker born every minute.)

Michael Ossipoff

Why would having an opinion not be right or wrong?

Why would having an opinion not be right or wrong? — BlueBanana

Because it's actions not opinions that are right or wrong? Tough experience makes many a person something of a misanthrope. I don't see why I should hold it against them. I'm not a pedophile, for instance, but I don't think one can blame someone for their pedophilic thoughts: thoughts come to us from who-knows-where? Such people are to blame if they act on those thoughts, not for having them.

Because it's actions not opinions that are right or wrong? — mcdoodle

This is just the claim that having an opinion doesn't hold a moral value re-phrased.

Imo there are three kinds of "thoughts" (incorrect term but there isn't really a good synonym that I could think of): subconscious, feelings and conscious. Subconscious thoughts/feelings are what we are unaware of. By feelings I don't mean feelings as in your mental state but your feelings or opinions about a subject. Those include random thoughts, the origin of which you are unaware of. Conscious thoughts are what you think yourself because you decide so, and these can be opinions as well. Thinking something yourself out of your free will is a decision and an action.

Yes, I know I chose the terms above badly.

Of subconscious thoughts, a person is not responsible of. People's feelings aren't moral either, but their opinions about these opinions, which are conscious, are. One can for example have an opinion on some subject their own conscious opinions disagree with; for example because of rational reasoning or one's morals. Example given, I'd give (or want to give) Hitler a death sentence, was he alive and the desicion was up to me, but I also realize a being morally superior to me would only put him in jail. Feeling he deserves a death sentence is not a desicion of mine that I'd be responsible of, but knowing that my feelings are wrong is, and thus I believe my actions (which include thoughts) are morally acceptable.

In the case of pedophiles, if they get the thoughts, which are part of the second group, but know that those thoughts are sick, they are not morally wrong any more than any other person. However, if they enjoy those thoughts and think they're fine and don't act only because of the fear of consequences, the person is bad (a bit similarly to how Aristotle's ethics that don't focus on individual actions but the nature of a person).

It isn’t necessarily individuals, an individual can be perfectly fine, but it’s the groups that individuals form, ridiculous groups they insist on belonging to, and their adamant certainty that their group, their religion, their team, their political party, their particular emotional hot button is the best one and is oh so correct and unquestionable that calls everything to question. That this arrogant ignorance is spread throughout all societies and runs throughout the realm of human social interactions, while at the same time each and every one these conflicting schisms and sects seem to see themselves as benevolent and knowledgeable, it’s this that makes me question the relevance of humanity.

I would say misanthropy is a conditioned response to repeated unsatisfactory interactions with other people. It very much depends on one's experiences, the interaction between an individual and their physical/social environment.

One would expect misanthropy to increase with overcrowding.

I don’t think it can be “right” or “wrong”. “Is liking vanilla ice cream right?”

“Is liking vanilla ice cream right?” — khaled

That depends; is it good vanilla ice cream? There's some really bad ice cream about these days.

let’s say it is of medium quality.

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

The only thing I'd count as evidence for misanthropy is someone expressing dislike, contempt, or hatred for humankind in general.

Maybe you mean "justification for misanthropy"? Maybe if everyone acted like a complete asshole all the time. But they don't, thankfully.

let’s say it is of medium quality. — khaled

Oh it's quite wrong to like mediocrity!

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot not cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. — Revelations

Maybe you mean "justification for misanthropy"? Maybe if everyone acted like a complete asshole all the time. But they don't, thankfully. — Terrapin Station

I meant justification.

Everyone does not have to act badly all the time to give a negative assessment of humans or the human condition. I consider World War two and the Holocaust a huge black mark against humanity that cannot be lessened by acts of kindness. It is hard to find acts of helpful behaviour equivalent to the harmful and destructive behaviour.

I cannot understand why people could treat human atrocities and other bad behaviours so lightly.

Everyone does not have to act badly all the time to give a negative assessment of humans or the human condition. I consider World War two and the Holocaust a huge black mark against humanity that cannot be lessened by acts of kindness. It is hard to find acts of helpful behaviour equivalent to the harmful and destructive behaviour. — Andrew4Handel

Not everything everyone does is great, of course, but I think good things far outweigh bad things.

I don’t think it can be “right” or “wrong”. “Is liking vanilla ice cream right?” — khaled

I think if you dislike something that is harmless that would seem irrational, or merely a preference, but disliking horrible destructive behavior would appear to be a rational analysis.

From what I remember utilitarian calculations calculate levels of harm and pleasure in a similar way. I higher proportion of pleasure is seen as desirable and it is hard to see how a higher level of pleasure could be seen as undesirable.

Not everything everyone does is great, of course, but I think good things far outweigh bad things. — Terrapin Station

I don't think anything can outweigh a genocide. These kind of things are the depths of depravity.

However I am not sure how you would be making your calculation.

What is on your positive and negative side over the calculation?

On my negative side I would place the arms industry, poverty and inequality, greed and overpopulation. I would also include historical destructive behaviour like wars and slavery.

On the positive side I would put attempts at social reform, attempts to decrease inequality and create a sustainable population and economy. I would also include Historical altruistic and reforming behaviour like campaigns against slavery, racism and misogyny.

But you could put all sorts of random things in an equation to skewer it and ignore certain phenomena.

I feel that it is hard to be non destructive as a human partly because the competitive nature of life, the need to exploit the planet and current huge levels of one-sided exploitation of resources. Exploitation of poorer workers and countries and the rest of nature.

Maybe I just have an inexplicable prejudice against humans? Fueled by experience though.

On my negative side I would place the arms industry, poverty and inequality, greed and overpopulation. I would also include historical destructive behaviour like wars and slavery. — Andrew4Handel

I don't just blanketly consider the arms industry or greed negative. Inequality I think is unavoidable and not negative. I wouldn't say the world is overpopulated, either. Re poverty, the problem is simply when people don't have housing, food, etc.

Re positive stuff, there are countless little things that hundreds of millions of people do every day that are positive. That's what most of the world is like most of the time.

This seems to be a subjective assessment.

In terms of misanthropy, the fact that we need trillions dollars worth of weapons to protect each other from each other I cannot spin in a positive light.

I think a lot of positive actions only happen because of something negative. So for instance giving to charity because of poverty and under funding of medicine, or caring for a sick relative but they have to be sick for you to do this.

This seems to be a subjective assessment. — Andrew4Handel

Of course. It can't be anything else.

Anyway, a few examples of positives that I'd not say are not "because of something negative," these are things that I experienced just today:

My wife and I enjoyed breakfast together and enjoyed a movie together while we ate breakfast.

People held the door for others at a store I went to and helped a woman out of the door with her baby stroller.

People were courteous to me and others biking (I was biking), walking, jogging as we all went about our activities, plenty of people smiling and greeting each other, accommodating each other to make travel safe and easy (including vehicular traffic in some areas), etc.

People were helpful re taking pictures of tourists. (I'm in an area with lots of tourists).

Of course. It can't be anything else. — Terrapin Station

I don't think that the amount of people that die in a famine or war is subjective.

And that is the context of your people opening the door for each other example.

I don't think that the amount of people that die in a famine or war is subjective. — Andrew4Handel

Weren't we talking about value assessments of facts such as that, including compared to other things? We're not just naming the facts, right?

Facts can lead to value assessments.

Some facts are about preferences only, such as my brain enjoys the taste of ice cream and this leads me to value ice cream for example.

But other facts that lead to values are likely completely independent of how I respond to an event. Someone else's suffering and hardship is not diminished by how you respond to it.

Any value assessments are subjective.

Someone else's suffering is a way they feel about their situation, their experiences.

Any value assessments are subjective.

Someone else's suffering is a way they feel about their situation, their experiences. — Terrapin Station

I don't think pain is simply an opinion. People writhe in agony from pain.

It would be bizarre if peoples values were not at correlated with any objective event. Your position verges on solipsism.

I believe those people suffered in that war and I have good reason to do so and that triggers my values.
I don't think anyone would be misanthropic if there was no mean spirited and destructive behaviour from humans.
For example I don't like the feel of cotton wool but I don't blame cotton for that because it is simply my response to it, but you can blame humans for some of their dire conduct.

I don't think pain is simply an opinion. — Andrew4Handel

"Subjective" refers to it being a mental state. You're not arguing that pain is something other than a mental state, are you?

"Subjective" refers to it being a mental state — Terrapin Station

I am not sure I agree with this definition.

I think subjective means personal or perspectival.

You can judge someones is in pain without them telling you.

In a banal sense everything can only be a mental state for us to access it in which case you can say nothing is objective but it does not need to follow that observing something through mental state means is has no external reality.

However take your example of someone opening a door for you. All you know about that person is that one action not their past history thoughts, beliefs and desires. There are other facts that would give you a better informed opinion of their character.

I like Plato's and Marcus Aurelius's accounts stating that all men desire the Good, however that they may be misled by a great many things connected to material existence, causing them to have false conceptions of the Good, often leading to their demise.

Connected to this is a passage I recently read in a book by Manly P. Hall, concerning the Eleusinian Mysteries which represented the myth of the abduction of Persephone from her mother Demeter by the king of the underworld Hades:

"The soul of man - often called Psyche, and in the Eleusinian Mysteries symbolized by Persephone - is essentially a spiritual thing. Its true home is in the higher worlds, where, free from the bondage of material form and material concepts, it is said to be truly alive and self-expressive. The human, or physical, nature of man, according to this doctrine, is a tomb, a quagmire, false and impermanent thing, the source of all sorrow and suffering. Plato describes the body as the sepulcher of the soul; and by this he means not only the human form but also human nature.
The gloom and depression of the Lesser Mysteries represented the agony of the spiritual soul unable to express itself because it has accepted the limitations and illusions of the human environment. The crux of the Eleusinian argument was that man is neither better nor wiser after death than during life. If he does not rise above ignorance during his sojourn here, man goes at death into eternity to wander about forever, making the same mistakes which he made here. If he does not outgrow the desire for material possession here, he will carry it with him into the invisible world, where, because he can never gratify the desire, he will continue in endless agony. Dante's Inferno is symbolically descriptive of the sufferings of those who never freed their spiritual natures from the cravings, habits, viewpoints, and limitations of their Plutonic personalities. Those who made no endeavor to improve themselves (whose souls have slept) during their physical lives, passed at death into Hades, where, lying in rows, they slept through all eternity as they had slept through life."

I much prefer such an outlook over a misanthropic view, for what is left for the misanthrope but to sulk?

You can judge someones is in pain without them telling you. — Andrew4Handel

Most of the time, can't you tell if someone is really loving or hating a song, film, painting, or some particular food etc. without them telling you?