Editing Misanthropy (section)

== Arguments ==
[[File:Battery hens -Bastos, Sao Paulo, Brazil-31March2007.jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|alt=Photo of battery hens in Brazil|Misanthropes often focus on the harm done by humans to animals on a large scale, as in factory farming.]]
Various discussions in the academic literature concern the question of whether misanthropy is an accurate assessment of humanity and what the consequences of adopting it are. Many proponents of misanthropy focus on human flaws together with examples of when they exercise their negative influences. They argue that these flaws are so severe that misanthropy is an appropriate response.<ref>{{multiref2 |1={{harvnb|Cooper|2018|pp=4, 7, 54}}  |2={{harvnb|Benatar|2015|p=55}}  |3={{harvnb|Querido|2020|pp=152–7}} |4={{harvnb|Gibson|2017|p=13}} }}</ref>

Special importance in this regard is usually given to moral faults.{{sfn|Svoboda|2022|pp=3, 13}}{{sfn|Benatar|2015|p=55}}{{sfn|Kidd|2020b}} This is based on the idea that humans do not merely cause a great deal of suffering and destruction but are also morally responsible for them. The reason is that they are intelligent enough to understand the consequences of their actions and could potentially make balanced long-term decisions instead of focusing on personal short-term gains.{{sfn|Svoboda|2022|pp=3, 5}}

Proponents of misanthropy sometimes focus on extreme individual manifestations of human flaws, like mass killings ordered by dictators. Others emphasize that the problem is not limited to a few cases, for example, that many ordinary people are complicit in their manifestation by supporting the political leaders committing them.{{sfn|Benatar|2015|pp=37, 41–42}} A closely related argument is to claim that the underlying flaws are there in everyone, even if they reach their most extreme manifestation only in a few.{{sfn|Kidd|2020b}} Another approach is to focus not on the grand extreme cases but on the ordinary small-scale manifestations of human flaws in everyday life, such as lying, cheating, breaking promises, and being ungrateful.{{sfn|Benatar|2015|p=43}}{{sfn|Kidd|2020a|pp=[https://philpapers.org/rec/KIDHHN 505–508]}}

Some arguments for misanthropy focus not only on general tendencies but on actual damage caused by humans in the past.{{sfn|Svoboda|2022|pp=4–5}}{{sfn|Cooper|2018|p=80}}{{sfn|Benatar|2015|pp=38–9}} This concerns, for instance, damages done to the [[ecosystem]], like [[Environmental disaster|ecological catastrophes]] resulting in [[Extinction event|mass extinctions]].{{sfn|Svoboda|2022|pp=1, 5}}

=== Criticism ===
Various theorists have criticized misanthropy. Some opponents acknowledge that there are extreme individual manifestations of human flaws, like mentally ill perpetrators, but claim that these cases do not reflect humanity at large and cannot justify the misanthropic attitude. For instance, while there are cases of extreme human brutality, like the mass killings committed by dictators and their forces, listing such cases is not sufficient for condemning humanity at large.{{sfn|Kidd|2020b}}{{sfn|Benatar|2015|pp=39–41}}

Some critics of misanthropy acknowledge that humans have various flaws but state that they present just one side of humanity while evaluative attitudes should take all sides into account. This line of thought is based on the idea that humans possess equally important [[virtue]]s that make up for their shortcomings.{{sfn|Benatar|2015|pp=51–52}} For example, accounts that focus only on the great wars, cruelties, and tragedies in human history ignore its positive achievements in the sciences, arts, and humanities.{{sfn|Gibson|2017|p=64}}

Another explanation given by critics is that the negative assessment should not be directed at humanity but at some social forces. These forces can include [[capitalism]], [[communism]], [[patriarchy]], [[racism]], [[religious fundamentalism]], or [[imperialism]].{{sfn|Svoboda|2022|pp=13, 69}} Supporters of this argument would adopt an opposition to one of these social forces rather than a misanthropic opposition to humanity.{{sfn|Svoboda|2022|pp=69–70}}

Some objections to misanthropy are based not on whether this attitude appropriately reflects the negative value of humanity but on the costs of accepting such a position. The costs can affect both the individual misanthrope and the society at large. This is especially relevant if misanthropy is linked to hatred, which may turn easily into violence against social institutions and other humans and may result in harm.{{sfn|McGraw|2014|pp=[https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/48504306.pdf 1–2]|loc=1. Introduction}} Misanthropy may also deprive the person of most pleasures by making them miserable and friendless.{{sfn|Shklar|1984|loc=5. Misanthropy (p. 192)}}

Another form of criticism focuses more on the theoretical level and claims that misanthropy is an inconsistent and self-contradictory position.{{sfn|Gibson|2017|pp=4–5}}{{sfn|Querido|2020|pp=152–7}} An example of this inconsistency is the misanthrope's tendency to denounce the social world while still being engaged in it and being unable to fully leave it behind.{{sfn|Gibson|2017|pp=4, 60}} This criticism applies specifically to misanthropes who exclude themselves from the negative evaluation and look down on others with contempt from an arrogant position of [[inflated ego]] but it may not apply to all types of misanthropy.{{sfn|Harris|2022|pp=202–2}}{{sfn|Gibson|2017|p=63}}{{sfn|Svoboda|2022|p=8}} A closely related objection is based on the claim that misanthropy is an unnatural attitude and should therefore be seen as an aberration or a pathological case.{{sfn|Gibson|2017|p=65}}