Revision as of 00:18, 25 July 2023

Upon becoming disillusioned to the cruelties humans inflict upon animals every day by the millions, and every year by the billions, and witnessing the general populace's apathy to their plight since it's in the latter's benefit, it is very easy and very common for a person who has just recently gone Vegan to take on misanthropic views, ones that view the human species with nothing with contempt and scorn.

While at first it's completely understandable to take on this sort of mindset to view human beings as nothing but immoral parasites who do nothing but wreak havoc on animals and the planet, but this mindset is not only irrational, immoral, and incorrect, when it is associated with Veganism, it causes huge amounts of harm to the animal rights movement.

Association with the Vegan movement

One of the Seven Deadly Sins of Bad Vegan Activism is advocating, alongside Veganism, fringe claims, including conspiracy theories, political extremism, antinatalism, and of course, misanthropy.

The reasoning behind this simply comes down to PR. While Veganism as an idea is gaining wide acceptance in society, especially given animal welfare and environmental concerns, only a very small minority of people in the developed world are practicing a Vegan diet. The 99% of society who is not Vegan needs to be reached in some mode or form, but there is still a fairly limited representation of Vegans, meaning that every interaction someone has with a Vegan is vital to his or her impression on individuals in the entire movement. We create positive impressions by being relatable, understanding, compromising, and NOT advocating views that most people would regard as fringe, crazy, or unethical. If you associate these views with veganism, it creates the impression that ALL vegans hold these views, as a sort of part of ana overall ideology.

Are they wrong in creating that guilt by association? Sure, but it can't be entirely pinned on them. It would be harm to blame someone for thinking negatively of Vegans if the only ones they've met are misanthropic and show a hatred of humanity. At that point, Vegans aren't viewed as people being kind and compassionate by extending morality to animals, they are viewed as people who can't relate or understand humans, and are more Vegans due to just disliking humans, not because they necessarily care about animals.

Why Misanthropy Is Wrong

Morally

Empirically

One of the more common reasons for misanthropy is the idea that humans are inherently evil, as evidenced by many of the atrocities committed by humans throughout history, therefore making the goal of improving lost cause.

While it's easy to provide a counterexample for every example of a person who shows evidence that humans are inherently evil, regardless of which side is providing examples, this isn't a very useful or compelling argument. The fact of the matter is, saying that humans are either good or bad isn't very useful or even accurate. It's far more accurate to say that humans are short-sighted, ignorant, tribalistic, and emotional. This isn't something inherent to humans; This is something that is a result of our animal mind. If it weren't for humans, some other highly intelligent species would come along eventually, and there's no reason to think that species would necessarily be any better.

Are there evil humans? No doubt. But most humans are not, and the harm they cause is not done out of malice, it's done out of the flaws of our brains that did not evolve to be able to comprehend living in a complex society with moral dilemmas, social issues, and advanced understandings of scientific phenomenon.

As for the Vegans who lambaste humans as evil monsters yet tend to put animals (aside from maybe parasites) on pedestals as innocent, this isn't accurate either. While granted, it is something of a myth that nature is nothing but a brutal unforgiving place (nature documentaries have let us astray), that does not mean there is any shortage of violence and death that goes on between animals.

Misanthropes will point to immoral human behavior, such as men abusing raping women, people killing one another, discrimination such as racism, sexism, homophobia,

Of course, this is all true. But if you're going to look at the horrible things humans do, it's only fair to look at the horrible things animals do too.

If you want to counter that by saying that overall, the happiness felt by animals is probably outweighed by any of the harms and evils that they do to each other. Sure, bad things happen to animals, but a lot of good happens in nature.

This is all true, so it's completely fair and valid to grant it. And along with granting that, it also has to be granted that despite all the horrible things human beings tend to do to each other, there's plenty of happiness and altruism to go around. From friends and family loving and appreciating each other, a new parent looking into their firstborn child's eyes for the first time, good samaritans helping those in duress, appreciating the Earth's natural beauty, pursuing intellectual and artistic endeavors, fighting for good causes they care about, enjoying fantastic music, and doing their small part in helping move society forward.

After that point, the only reason why you wouldn't be compelled by this argument is because of some subconscious appeal to nature fallacy (remember, natural does not equal good) you automatically apply to animals, where it's fine for animals to do what they do since they're animals and part of the natural world, and bad for humans to do what they do since they're humans, separate from the natural world. For that, there really isn't any response since it's based on such an irrational thought process that would need to be completely eradicated from your brain in order to reach you (though at this point, it's safe to assume you're just a lost cause).

If even after all that reasoning explaining why misanthropy is a naive and idiotic worldview you still insist on hating humanity with a burning passion (which in your case trumps any sense), all we ask is that you keep these misanthropic views to yourself. We do not care how strongly you believe them, we do not care how right and justified you think you are in holding these views, and we do not care if you think more Vegans should take on a similar mindset. The fact of the matter is, misanthropy is viewed as an abhorrent worldview by society at large, and society at large is who we need to reach in order to get the world off of animal agriculture. If you put off society from Veganism because you're associating it with such a view, you are making it significantly harder to reach them in order for them to cut down or even eliminate their consumption of animal products, and this is something that really hurts animals. That's what we DO care about, so please keep quiet on this.

Case in point, retired animal rights activist Gary Yourofsky. Instead of retreading all of the problems with Gary, it is important to explain how misanthropy can cause an effective Vegan activist to lose their way.

Near the end, it was hard to tell if it was still about the animals, or if it started becoming less about them, and more about his narcissistic hatred of humanity. While Gary's activism had some flaws, particularly in his use of bad arguments (e.g. gross-out, humans are herbivores, etc.), opposition to animal welfare laws, his unwillingness to acknowledge any sort of moral gradience (i.e. a being is either in the circle of compassion or is not), his speeches have been massively impactful, and are credited with converting tens of thousands to Veganism, as well as inspiring hundreds to get into Vegan activism. However, along with all that came his extreme and uncompromising misanthropic views, which were expressed with hyperbole (e.g. "...we are the nastiest, filthiest, deadliest parasitic-organisms to ever infect The Universe!"). And instead of showing dismay or disappointment for being compelled to hold these views, he instead views it as a badge on honor, proudly parading his misanthropy as much as he could.

Did Gary really not consider for a second that these views do not portray Vegans in a negative light, and thus would push potential vegans away from considering reducing or eliminating their consumption of animal products, and hurt more animals in the long run? Or did he just not care? If the former, that would make Gary either suspiciously injudicious, or (and the probably more likely answer, if the former is accepted as the explanation for his behavior), just very, very stupid. If the latter, then that means (at least after he became a big name in the animal rights movement and gained a large following) he stopped doing the activism to help animals, and more just because he wanted to boast about how much he hated humans, and used the abuse humans enforce upon animals as a sort of leverage to justify and reinforce it.