I mean, morally? I have held for some years that misanthropy is essentially a sin. Humans are made in the image of the Lord, and to hold them in contempt is to hold the Lord in contempt. Still further, to hold anything in the world in utter contempt is, of course, to criticize its Creator (although you can get around that by dabbling in duality, and blaming the Devil for what you don't like).
Anyway, some of the criticisms of democracy seem to come from a deeply-held and observant misanthropy; I can't deny that ignorance, short-sidedness, venality, cruelty, dishonesty, etc., etc., exist, and a million examples of what I might call humanity on the part of humans won't outnumber examples of inhumanity. I cling to my optimism (a muddled, defiant, harsh, and fierce sort of optimism) despite my perception of the universe, rather than because of it.
Misanthropists aren't factually wrong, but I feel they are morally wrong. Or are they?
Redintegro Iraq,
-Vardibidian.
how much of us did we invent and how much was created? the invented part is fair game.
I’m not sure; I think it depends what you mean by misanthropy. I have both a huge admiration for the good in people, and a deep fear of their potential to do ill. At the core, maybe I think people are lazy: Give them the opportunity to do evil, and make it hard to do good, and their worst sides will come out. Make it easy to do good, and make sure evil isn’t rewarded, and you’ll have heaping platefuls of virtue all around. Is that misanthropic?
Both of your comments show a commendable balance, and yes , the good and evil, the invented and created parts are so mixed that you could stand up a spoon in us.
None of that is misanthropic, to my eyes. There’s an element of hopefulness in it, and more importantly an element (if I can interpret) of affection for humanity. I’m talking about the real thing, contempt for humanity and for humans, Swiftian or Nietzschean or what you will. A despairing sort of “people are so awful” feeling. You know?
R.I.,
-V.
Ah! A possible source of misunderstanding. You see, I thought you were talking about a more garden-variety sort of misanthropy, as suggested by this sentence in your top-level post:
Anyway, some of the criticisms of democracy seem to come from a deeply-held and observant misanthropy
I was thinking that it’s perfectly reasonable to tie failings in democracy to human failings and to entertain scorn or jaundice about both as a result. It wouldn’t be inaccurate to describe that as misanthropy. But that’s a misanthropic Merlot with dinner, and you’re talking about a steady diet of cigarrettes and Misanthropy Scotch.
the justice system is adversarial. i think maybe there is some understanding woven through the system of the two-faced devil in all of us.
in fact i’d say that in an adversarial, mercantile arrangement like ours, an autocracy would be more threatening, as it would put the army in charge of covering up the multiple, gigantic public ripoffs, as done in central and south america.
here we vote to be ripped off and we even get a booklet of fine print in the mail before the election!
although i mentioned macro-larceny and voting in the same sentence, i did not mean to imply that tax dollars are being stolen. we value entrepreneurs, and we value our democratic government, but we do not value fiscal intrepidity by our representatives or their favored constituents. go figure!
eek! one last thing. churchill’s “except for all the rest” quote aside, democracy is definitely a double-edged sword for the powerful which works best when the people think of the government as a trough.
you think that sounds bad, don’t you. you think that makes the government sound like a bad thing, a terrible crime against innocent wallets. but…
if the government is a humiliating trough, then people who aren’t shamelessly hungry won’t vote. neat trick.
Here’s a slightly different angle to take on the question. My position on the morality of misanthropy is this: “don’t vote for a misanthrope, or someone who is the instrument of misanthropes.”
Whether people are selfish, lazy, brutal, and foolish or not is really beside the point. One might recognize awful qualities as pervasive in humanity and yet still love people, and such a one might do well in government.
Someone who despises people, whether they despise people for their brutality or their trusting simplicity, and who therefore has no compunction against using what power they have to harm people, should be kept out of government.
“what’s wrong with america?
“regular people are shit. i’m telling you, real worthless piles of dung. but my people have done a pretty good job for you over the years, and it’s time to even things up.
“so if you elect me, we’re going to get it all back, in flesh. we’ll throw your kids in prison, rape your wives, stomp your pets, burn down your property, and lay waste to this entire worthless wasteland of a depraved, demoralized, disgusting country. we will punish you and we will laugh as we do it.
“i’m alan nowun, and i’m running for governor.”
alan nowun for governor – get what you deserve.
If Our Only President had been that up front about his gameplan in the 2000 campaign, the outcome of the election might have been a bit different. Then again, maybe not. A strong leader who is against entitlements seems to have a lot of appeal to American voters these days.
there, if that’s not enough to restore anyone’s faith in people and democracy, at least there’s still a hypothetical candidate who would be totally unelectable.
misanthropy is different from thinking ill of people, right? different from paranoia?
Well, as far as I’m concerned, misanthropy is a contempt for people, generally (that is, as opposed to disliking individuals) and the things that people do and make. It ranges from a fairly good natured ‘people are such morons, there’s no point in appealing to their brains’ attitide such as is evidenced by many people in the entertainment and news industries to something closer to paranoia, believing that people are sneaky, cruel and vicious, inclined to attack those few people (like one’s self) who are Good.
Thanks,
-Vardibidian.
That’s a good deal different from paranoia.
Interesting, though, that one of the things the Liberal Elite gets accused of is contempt for ordinary people—a patronizing “we know better than you do” kind of thing, a sense that people are weak and need (for example) to be given handouts rather than job training that will let them stand proudly on their own two feet, etc.
(Note that as a member of the Liberal Elite myself, I don’t think of myself as having that kind of patronizing contempt, but it’s an argument I’ve seen from a certain type of conservative.)
The flip side of Liberal contempt is conservative contempt, of course, which views ordinary people as lazy and parasitical. Hand-outs take the hard-earned wealth of people with the virtue needed for hard work and give it to lazy people. Instead, the people ought to be made to work to earn their keep. Work-fare seen in that light is not about building independence and self-esteem, but about protecting the virtuous from exploitation by the vicious.
The ways of misanthropy are many . . .
Chris wrote:
If Our Only President had been that up front about his gameplan in the 2000 campaign, the outcome of the election might have been a bit different. Then again, maybe not. A strong leader who is against entitlements seems to have a lot of appeal to American voters these days.
Nao mentions some evidence of this when she tells me why Jesse Helms was elected.
Jed writes:
one of the things the Liberal Elite gets accused of is contempt for ordinary people—a patronizing “we know better than you do” kind of thing, a sense that people are weak and need (for example) to be given handouts rather than job training that will let them stand proudly on their own two feet, etc.
I am well-aquainted with several such conservatives, and it is surprising how difficult it has been to persuade them that I personally do not think in this disparaging way about others, even when I might think “handouts” are a useful tool. (Admittedly, part of my annoyance is being told what I think by someone who hasn’t taken the time to find out what I think.)
Chris’ description (“conservative contempt, of course, which views ordinary people as lazy and parasitical. Hand-outs take the hard-earned wealth of people with the virtue needed for hard work and give it to lazy people. Instead, the people ought to be made to work to earn their keep”) is also possessed by these aquaintances. Suddenly it seems to me that this combination of ideas is what I might call hypocrisy (thinking back to another of V’s posts a few days back…). New connection for me here; must chew on it a moment.