Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

[Mollocephalus]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

If you look at human race not as a series of individuals, but as a whole, the results are pretty saddening. It's not a matter of responsibility, rather the analysis of collective results. You can blame humanity without automatically blaming the single individual.

[devonin]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

Because the only thing needed for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

I think bigotry has more of a "I'm singling you out against everyone else" connotation, whereas misanthropy is a sort of "I'm singling myself out from all of you, because fuck you guys" thing.

Misanthropy doesn't necessarily require being a reclusive hermit or anything but I think it's pretty clear that they both have different contextual implications.

[stargroup100]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

I think bigotry has more of a "I'm singling you out against everyone else" connotation, whereas misanthropy is a sort of "I'm singling myself out from all of you, because fuck you guys" thing.

Misanthropy doesn't necessarily require being a reclusive hermit or anything but I think it's pretty clear that they both have different contextual implications.

Once again this ****** beats me to what I was going to say. LOL

Assuming I understand what you're talking about, I think the reason why misanthropy is socially acceptable while bigotry is not is because of how a person who holds these views affect the people around them as well as how these views are interpreted.

A misanthropist is generally seen as someone who criticizes humanity by bringing to light negative aspects of the human condition, something which most people interpret as just cynicism. A bigot, however, is targeting only a select group of people, treating them unfairly. It's this unequal treatment that leads some people to be offended. Most people don't really care about which is more fair in a technical sense, they simply react more strongly towards what they believe is more unfair from their observations.

We live in a society where kids learn about historical events such as the Holocaust/WWII, slavery and the Civil War, and 9/11, where large-scale tragedies and catastrophes arise from bigotry and prejudice, not general hatred for human kind. Economically, it's also very difficult to deal large-scale damage to humankind by yourself, and misanthropists tend to not like working with other people. Bigotry, however, can become more extreme when people of similar views band together, strengthening each other's hatred. This group power then becomes far more dangerous. Philosophically, misanthropy stems more from expectations that are not met, and this type of hate does not tend to lead to violence, whereas bigotry is a kind of hate that generally desires to, optimally, eliminate "inferior" beings.

Another point I should mention is this topic's relevance to a psychological phenomenon. If you leave a baby alone, he's fine. If you give him a lollipop and take it away from him, he'll cry. It would've been better if he had never seen the lollipop in the first place. The root of this phenomenon stems from the idea in our head that realizes that in comparison of a past or alternate state, our current state is less-desirable. This is why people get so upset and/or jealous when people are given uneven circumstances, and that's why the unfair treatment of bigotry is less accepted and stirs more of a reaction than the "unfair" treatment of misanthropy.

[Zaevod]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

I contest the "humanity sucks as a whole", actually. The reason why people focus on bad things is because they stand out easily. If you actually make some kind of statistical research comparing good or neutral actions vs bad actions, you will find out that bad actions are an overwhelming minority.

If a person was good during their entire life, but for some reason snaps and kills someone, people won't really give a damn about anything other than this act and what directly caused it. Which is justifiable, of course, if we want to eradicate this type of thing.

Even if, 1000 years from now, crimes occur at one hundredth of the frequency they occur today, people will still say "humanity sucks". In fact, they will always complain as long as things aren't perfect, which they will never be.

Because the only thing needed for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.

Doesn't this imply that everyone has enough power to stop evil acts from happening? I'd definitely do that if I could, but my influence is pretty limited.

Another reason I find misanthropy illogical is the notion that somehow evil is tied to human nature, when it's not. If any species evolved to the point where it would be nearly as smart us, it would probably do very similar mistakes or acts of stupidity/evil. Naturally, the perceived responsibility is dependent on the power and intelligence of the agent. The problem is that we are only "partially smart".

[stargroup100]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

Okay so I'm guessing you don't care about what society thinks of misanthropy and you're questioning the philosophy itself.

Doesn't this imply that everyone has enough power to stop evil acts from happening? I'd definitely do that if I could, but my influence is pretty limited.

He's not saying one person can stop evil. He's saying that evil will happen is nobody (good men) does anything.

Another reason I find misanthropy illogical is the notion that somehow evil is tied to human nature, when it's not... The problem is that we are only "partially smart".

I disagree. The notion of whether something is good or evil, whether it be an act or a person or something else, is evaluated based on the human condition, on our morals. It is not something that can be evaluated objectively, such as the length of an object or the time it takes to complete a task. Human minds determine what "evil" actually is. So to say it's not tied to human nature is kind of ridiculous in that sense.

I also don't see your point that talks about other species. We evaluate whether or not something is evil based on the amount of suffering it causes, and generally speaking all lifeforms that could develop this intelligence can sense its surroundings and react accordingly to this. I would say that in this case evil would still be tied to human nature, just not human nature exclusively, and evil between species would also vary due to biological/psychological differences.

And you have to explain what you mean by "partially smart" because I don't understand the significance of that term.

Still, this doesn't explain what all of this has to do with misanthropy. If I were to accept everything you say, and people still fall short of my expectations, how does that invalidate my view or make it illogical?

[Zaevod]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

I disagree. The notion of whether something is good or evil, whether it be an act or a person or something else, is evaluated based on the human condition, on our morals. It is not something that can be evaluated objectively, such as the length of an object or the time it takes to complete a task. Human minds determine what "evil" actually is. So to say it's not tied to human nature is kind of ridiculous in that sense.

It's ridiculous to assume that any other species of similar intelligence wouldn't have a concept of evil. Assuming such species is capable of feeling satisfaction, of course.

I also don't see your point that talks about other species. We evaluate whether or not something is evil based on the amount of suffering it causes, and generally speaking all lifeforms that could develop this intelligence can sense its surroundings and react accordingly to this. I would say that in this case evil would still be tied to human nature, just not human nature exclusively, and evil between species would also vary due to biological/psychological differences.

Yes, you really missed the point. What I meant is that it makes no sense to blame evil unto the human condition.

It's also strange for one to be a misanthrope because, to perceive humanity as inherently "evil" or whatever, you need to have the moral perspective to be able to judge that. If your human mind has the capacity to have that perspective, doesn't that mean that it can avoid the immoral actions? Obviously, it can. So it really is stupid to see "human nature" as something inherently bad.

And you have to explain what you mean by "partially smart" because I don't understand the significance of that term.

It was just a silly way of saying "imperfect".

Still, this doesn't explain what all of this has to do with misanthropy. If I were to accept everything you say, and people still fall short of my expectations, how does that invalidate my view or make it illogical?

Well, according to you "A misanthropist is generally seen as someone who criticizes humanity by bringing to light negative aspects of the human condition, something which most people interpret as just cynicism."

I was really referring to something else, in the beginning of this thread. At least, what most self-entitled misanthropes claim to believe. People who hate humanity or at least believe that humanity is inherently bad or morally inferior as a species. This kind of thinking is what I find illogical.

There's nothing particularly distinct about bringing light to negative aspects of humanity. If that is the case, pretty much everyone can be considered a "misanthrope" and the label is practically meaningless.

The examples in the wikipedia page are closer to the kind of thinking that I'm calling illogical: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy

Here's one of the first examples of the page:

"My hate is general, I detest all men;
Some because they are wicked and do evil,
Others because they tolerate the wicked,
Refusing them the active vigorous scorn
Which vice should stimulate in virtuous minds."

I find this kind of thinking just infuriating. He detests ALL men because he only perceives the two groups he mentioned? What about himself? Does he also "tolerate the wicked" and is just a stupid hypocrite? I don't tolerate the wicked, but I can't just somehow stop all bad people from doing bad things.

What baffles me is that this line of thinking is seen as politically correct and a lot of people try to appear "smart" by saying this kind of bullshit.

[stargroup100]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

For the record, I'm not a misanthropist. Quite the opposite actually. While I do disagree with the notion that humans are evil, I don't agree with how you're interpreting the issue.

What I meant is that it makes no sense to blame evil unto the human condition.

I think what you're trying to say is that humans are not innately evil. The confusion probably arises due to your wording, but the root of evil does arise from the human condition, yes.

It's also strange for one to be a misanthrope because, to perceive humanity as inherently "evil" or whatever, you need to have the moral perspective to be able to judge that. If your human mind has the capacity to have that perspective, doesn't that mean that it can avoid the immoral actions? Obviously, it can. So it really is stupid to see "human nature" as something inherently bad.

There's a difference in what we're saying here. I never said human nature was inherently bad or anything of the sort. What I said was that without the human condition, we wouldn't have the concept of evil at all. I agree with the notion that humans are not innately evil.

Good and evil is not black and white. There are varying degrees of evil, and even one particular case can have multiple interpretations. What is evil to you might not be evil to someone else. What is somewhat evil to you might be incredibly evil to someone else. Judging evil correctly may be a near impossible task, but that doesn't stop someone from thinking that humans are inherently evil. If in this person's mind he can justify his position, why would it be stupid?

There's also a strange gap in your logic. Suppose I perceive humanity to be evil and I have the moral perspective to be able to judge that. How does the fact that I can simply identify and avoid evil acts say anything about humans as a whole? Even if you meant all people being able to identify evil and avoid it, you're also assuming that they choose to do so. Part of the idea of evil comes from the fact that even people who identify evil don't even choose to avoid it, sometimes embracing it.

Well, according to you "A misanthropist is generally seen as someone who criticizes humanity by bringing to light negative aspects of the human condition, something which most people interpret as just cynicism."

Back then I was talking about society's perception of misanthropists, not what they actually are or believe.

He detests ALL men because he only perceives the two groups he mentioned? What about himself? Does he also "tolerate the wicked" and is just a stupid hypocrite? I don't tolerate the wicked, but I can't just somehow stop all bad people from doing bad things.

What baffles me is that this line of thinking is seen as politically correct and a lot of people try to appear "smart" by saying this kind of bullshit.

You drew a quote from a character in a play. Looking at the Wikipedia page of the play, it says "...there is much uncertainty about whether the main character Alceste is supposed to be perceived as a hero for his strong standards of honesty or whether he is supposed to be perceived as a fool for having such idealistic and unrealistic views about society." In this context it's easy to see why this could be politically correct; it is expecting high standards from society.

This is also consistent with the following description of the philosophy: "Socrates defines the misanthrope in relation to his fellow man: 'Misanthropy develops when without art one puts complete trust in somebody thinking the man absolutely true and sound and reliable and then a little later discovers him to be bad and unreliable ... and when it happens to someone often ... he ends up ... hating everyone.' Misanthropy, then, is presented as the result of thwarted expectations..."

The reason why they hate all humans is because they expect humans to be perfect or almost-perfect, and then realize that all humans have certain flaws they find difficult to find acceptable. Clearly, this tends to lead to the misanthropist believing he is "above" everyone else. Arthur Schopenhauer adds: "misanthropy does not necessarily equate with an inhumane attitude towards humanity."

I think you group all misanthropists and think their hate for humanity is simple and directly correlated with the nature of evil, and that's a mistake. In addition, even though we might use the words "all humans," hating humanity and hating every human being are still two separate concepts. Obviously I don't agree with this philosophy, as I think it's unrealistic and unnecessary in a certain sense, but at the very least I can understand how someone can reach these conclusions and believe them. There are people out there who are illogical in their hatred towards humans, of course, but to discredit misanthropy as a philosophy in that manner is not understanding what you're criticizing. You should target those with illogical hate, not misanthropy.


Ironically, you could have the potential to be a misanthropist. You have a certain expectation of people:

It's also strange for one to be a misanthrope because, to perceive humanity as inherently "evil" or whatever, you need to have the moral perspective to be able to judge that. If your human mind has the capacity to have that perspective, doesn't that mean that it can avoid the immoral actions? Obviously, it can. So it really is stupid to see "human nature" as something inherently bad.

If you believe that if a human being can identify evil and find a way to avoid it, they must do it, and then you realize that nobody is perfect, you could be sorely disappointed. You might know many good people who end up doing particular evil things in their lives, probably by mistake, and the disappointment to the fact that humans are doomed to repeat this pattern for eternity is infuriating, invoking a kind of hatred for humanity. Voila, misanthropist.

[Zaevod]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

I guess I don't expect anyone to be perfect, but I still expect most people to be decent on the majority of occasions.

Well, anyhow, the quote I picked actually reflects what I have heard in many places.

[devonin]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

"My hate is general, I detest all men;
Some because they are wicked and do evil,
Others because they tolerate the wicked,
Refusing them the active vigorous scorn
Which vice should stimulate in virtuous minds."

I find this kind of thinking just infuriating. He detests ALL men because he only perceives the two groups he mentioned?

Those groups include all men. You are either wicked, or tolerate the wicked.

Because, he would likely argue, if you actually were neither wicked nor tolerated the wicked, the active and vigorous scorn he feels should be stimulated would result in an eventual lack in wicked people.

[Zaevod]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

Those groups include all men. You are either wicked, or tolerate the wicked.

Because, he would likely argue, if you actually were neither wicked nor tolerated the wicked, the active and vigorous scorn he feels should be stimulated would result in an eventual lack in wicked people.

Explain to me again how I have the power to cease wicked people.

Also, last time I noted, psychopaths will be psychopaths regardless of society's disapproval or "vigorous scorn". Preventing any opportunity for them to manifest is far beyond my abilities. And, no, I don't tolerate evil.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

Zaevod I literally have no clue what you're trying to argue. Can you condense it into a couple sentences?

Are you trying to argue that misanthropy is probably confirmation bias in most cases?

[Zaevod]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

Are you trying to argue that misanthropy is probably confirmation bias in most cases?

Confirmation bias and overgeneralizations. I'm just arguing that I don't find this position logical. I already get that it's not the same as bigotry, but, still...

[Crazyjayde]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

This is a nice angle on misanthropy. However, I think a more suitable topic that could arise answers to your particular concerns is: "does misanthropy stems from ignorance, in the knowledge sense of the term (e.g. placing a blind trust on humanity and then being disappointed by it for not living up to your expectations), or could it rather consist in a lack of empathy? Can it be both?"

I'd be rather intrigued in knowing what shapes a misanthrope and how much his background weighs on the level of disdain he expresses. You seem to make the assumption that misanthropy is secluded to one mold, whereas its implications are much more intricate as a social phenomenon.

Things that might apply to particular contexts you seem to refer might not apply to the whole ideology. If the whole debate is to be defined within certain situations and not the whole scope, be sure to clarify. Otherwise it is ground for miscommunication.

[Zaevod]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

I was based on what I perceived to be the most common behavior of self-declared misanthropes.

If someone comes and claims that their "version" of misanthropy is just seeing humanity as inherently flawed, I'll obviously not have a problem with that. But if you expand the label to that point, it seems somewhat pointless for it to even exist.