I assume the worst… in people, events and so on. I think I do this as a defensive mechanism, to avoid negative surprises (I am very risk averse?). I think that I adopted this perspective due to a series of disappointments from my childhood (fire, divorce, cancer, etc.). I don’t think there’s much I can do about my perspective, but (a) it’s useful to tell it like it is and (b) I can see how my outlook has been changing — slowly — throughout the years, so it’s good to have a baseline.
Relative to me, my dad is (and Elinor Ostrom was) an optimist.
I used to say I was a realist, then I said I was a pessimist, but I think I’ve gone on further — in terms of definitions — to get to misanthrope, which is a really loaded term.
So let’s break it down, via wikipedia:
Misanthropy is traditionally defined as hatred or dislike of humankind. The word originated in the 17th century and has its roots in the Greek words μῖσος mīsos ‘hatred’ and ἄνθρωπος ānthropos ‘man, human’. In contemporary philosophy, the term is usually understood in a wider sense as a negative evaluation of humanity as a whole based on humanity’s vices and flaws. This negative evaluation can express itself in various forms, hatred being only one of them. In this sense, misanthropy has a cognitive component based on a negative assessment of humanity and is not just a blind rejection. Misanthropy is usually contrasted with philanthropy, which refers to the love of humankind and is linked to efforts to increase human well-being, for example, through good will, charitable aid, and donations. Both terms have a range of meanings and do not necessarily contradict each other. In this regard, the same person may be a misanthrope in one sense and a philanthrope in another sense.
One central aspect of all forms of misanthropy is that their target is not local but ubiquitous. This means that the negative attitude is not just directed at some individual persons or groups but at humanity as a whole. In this regard, misanthropy is different from other forms of negative discriminatory attitudes directed at a particular group of people. This distinguishes it from the intolerance exemplified by misogynists, misandrists, and racists, which hold a negative attitude toward women, men, or certain races.
I can get behind this definition, as I have experience in these related cliches:
- “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” — Lord Acton
- “One person is never as stupid as a group of people. That’s why they have lynch mobs, not lynch individuals.” Ben Horowitz
- “You know what makes me happy? Watching my species destroy itself. I take it as a sport, as a kinda hobby, and I root for the complete destruction of this culture that we live in. I root for the underdogs. I root for Nature because on this planet at this time, Nature is the underdog.” — George Carlin
…and I particularly identify with the ecocide results of our mass behavior, our mass desire to consume more, for everyone to live above each other (a logical fallacy), to always and everywhere have more of everything. I will write more about these ideas in my review of Small is Beautiful, but I can safely say here that I really hate my species for destroying the miracles of Nature and evolution — the corals, the insects, the ecosystems and their many cycles of renewal, predator-prey, and other sustainable interactions.
…which leads to….
Human exceptionalism is the claim that human beings have unique importance and are exceptional compared to all other species. It is often based on the claim that they stand out because of their special capacities, like intelligence, rationality, and autonomy. In religious contexts, it is frequently explained in relation to a unique role that God foresaw for them or that they were created in God’s image. Human exceptionalism is usually combined with the claim that human well-being matters more than the well-being of other species. This line of thought can be used to draw various ethical conclusions. One is the claim that humans have the right to rule the planet and impose their will on other species. [I disagree, as humans broke the contract with God.] Another is that inflicting harm on other species may be morally acceptable if it is done with the purpose of promoting human well-being and excellence.
…[Misanthropes] hold that human beings are exceptional in a negative sense: given their destructive and harmful history, they are much worse than any other species.
Theorists in the field of deep ecology are also often critical of human exceptionalism and tend to favor a misanthropic perspective. Deep ecology is a philosophical and social movement that stresses the inherent value of nature and advocates a radical change in human behavior toward nature.
These ideas are nearly identical to my own — I am totally upset and angry that we humans are not just destroying so many ecosystems and extincting so many species, but also that this destruction is (a) ruining so much of the beauty around us and (b) putting our own lives at risk (read this and this on climate chaos).
And I am not alone!
A core aspect of misanthropy is that its negative attitude toward humanity is based on human flaws. Various misanthropes have provided extensive lists of flaws, including cruelty, greed, selfishness, wastefulness, dogmatism, self-deception, and insensitivity to beauty… It is often held that moral flaws constitute the most serious case.
Moral flaws are usually understood as tendencies to violate moral norms or as mistaken attitudes toward what is the good. They include cruelty, indifference to the suffering of others, selfishness, moral laziness, cowardice, injustice, greed, and ingratitude. The harm done because of these flaws can be divided into three categories: harm done directly to humans, harm done directly to other animals, and harm done indirectly to both humans and other animals by harming the environment. Examples of these categories include the Holocaust, factory farming of livestock, and pollution causing climate change. In this regard, it is not just relevant that human beings cause these forms of harm but also that they are morally responsible for them. This is based on the idea that they can understand the consequences of their actions and could act differently. However, they decide not to, for example, because they ignore the long-term well-being of others in order to get short-term personal benefits.
All of this is (a) pretty heavy stuff and (b) not exactly rocket science if you’ve been paying attention. (In my baby photo book, my mom helpfully pasted images of famous people who were shot in the year I was born — not the most enthusiastic endorsement, but my mom had a lot more to complain about in her, tragically short life.)
But I do think it’s good to “put a finger on” what you might see or feel about yourself and the world. I am doing that for myself here, and you should also be looking for ways to understand how your subjective views compare to those of your friends and family and the masses. Know thyself* is a good place to start if you want to reconcile your feelings with the people around you.**
Now, two more things. First, I want to compare my misanthropy (for all of humans, not excluding myself) with that of the play that made the idea so famous…
Molière’s play, “The Misanthrope or the Cantankerous Lover” was first performed in 1666. I read it while preparing this post, and it’s painful to “watch” Alceste (le misanthrope, himself) critiques every one except himself. He turns away those who would love him while he waits for another, but she is not interested because his ego demands that she follow him rather than engage in any sort of partnership. I can see how this play — even as it called attention to the terrible, mean games of the nobility — gave the term such a negative connotation, but I do not identify with Alceste.
Indeed, who would want to be called a “pessimist” or “misanthrope” when much nicer labels — “optimist” and “philanthrope” — exist? I am willing to take on these pejorative words — maybe to normalize them a bit — because I understand their meaning and how to apply them to oneself.***
Second, Terry Prachett created a perfect character for me to emulate while quoting Carlin: The librarian who was turned into an Orang-Utan, and decided that was just fine. From Sourcery (1988):
…but most of all he liked the way all the big questions of existence had suddenly resolved themselves into a vague interest in where his next banana was coming from. It wasn’t that he was unaware of the despair and nobility of the human condition. It was just that as far as he was concerned you could stuff it.
My one handed conclusion is that it’s better to pay more attention to bananas and less attention to human self-destruction.
* Here’s where I always quote Feynman’s response: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.”
** I’m very aware of the value and magic of group cooperation, but I tend to keep to myself when it comes to sports (swimming) or hobbies (woodworking). That said, I enjoy cooperating with other wood workers and sailors for now. In the future, I think I will go walkabout.
*** I’m also an “agnostic” (God’s existence is not worth discussing) and “migrant” (someone like me who intends to stay) — labels that are less popular than “believer” and “patriot”.