What do you think?
Animals and Misanthropy
This engaging volume explores and defends the claim that misanthropy is a justified attitude towards humankind in the light of how human beings both compare with and treat animals. Reflection on differences between humans and animals helps to confirm the misanthropic verdict, while reflection on the moral and other failings manifest in our treatment of animals illuminates what is wrong with this treatment. Human failings, it is argued, are too entrenched to permit optimism about the future of animals, but ways are proposed in which individual people may accommodate to the truth of misanthropy through cultivating mindful, humble and compassionate relationships to animals. Drawing on both Eastern and Western philosophical traditions David E. Cooper offers an original and challenging approach to the complex field of animal ethics.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
154 pages, Paperback
Published February 7, 2018
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
October 4, 2022
I agree with the author's main conclusions about the damning moral character of humans and about our horrific treatment of other animals. In my opinion, the best chapters of the book are Chapter 4, “Human Failings”, and Chapter 6, “Treatment of Animals”.
But there were many aspects of the book that I disagreed with. For instance, while Cooper defends a negative assessment of humanity, especially in light of our treatment of other animals, he is, as far as I can tell, much more optimistic about non-human animal life (e.g. in Chapter 5 and in the last two sections in Chapter 9). I do not understand what justifies this apparent optimism. In my view, we have strong reasons to endorse a negative assessment of all animal life — both in terms of the harms they inflict and the harms they endure — regardless of whether other animals can be said to have vices or not. (Such a view has also been defended with reference to the disvalue of various acts and traits, e.g. by Simon Knutsson.)
I likewise disagree with Cooper's virtue/vice-based answer to why our treatment of other animals is bad — his reply essentially being "because we are bad", because "it manifests our vices and failings" (p. 88). I believe our atrocious treatment of other animals is primarily bad because of the suffering it causes to the victims, not because of the bad moral character that this treatment displays, even if that may also be a reason to consider it bad.
The book also delves into how one might respond to its misanthropic conclusions, which I found to be a lacking investigation. In particular, Cooper's discussion of radicalism and quietism (Chapter 8) struck me as rather unclear. He seems to prefer a quietist response, and appears to be against ambitious action (as far as I can tell), yet without much of a defense of this opposition. He seems to set up a false choice between "unrealistic radical ambitions" versus "a modest quietism that is compatible with some efforts to help other beings".
No arguments are made against a position of, say, "trying to proactively work to make the world less bad in the most effective ways possible", although Cooper's (apparent) endorsement of quietism suggests that he does not favor that more proactive and ambitious position. But again, it is quite unclear what Cooper endorses in this chapter.
Finally, I was unimpressed by the section on “Rationality”, which seems to mostly engage with a strawman argument. Cooper writes “Many contemporary philosophers propose that the main requirement for treating animals well is the exercise of reason” (p. 124). But would any philosopher actually agree with that statement? I doubt it. (Cooper does not cite any specific philosophers following the quote above, but he mentions Peter Singer in a later footnote; however, I doubt Singer would endorse that quote of Cooper's, and Singer likewise would not endorse the claims about rights that Cooper spends a lot of time discussing in this section. Note that I say all this as someone who strongly disagrees with Singer's optimistic moral view, and as someone who agrees that optimists like Singer do not pay enough attention to humanity's poor moral character.)
I feel Cooper is quite uncharitable in terms of how he characterizes the views of those who place a strong emphasis on “reason” and “rationality” (e.g. as though such an approach excludes compassion).
But there were many aspects of the book that I disagreed with. For instance, while Cooper defends a negative assessment of humanity, especially in light of our treatment of other animals, he is, as far as I can tell, much more optimistic about non-human animal life (e.g. in Chapter 5 and in the last two sections in Chapter 9). I do not understand what justifies this apparent optimism. In my view, we have strong reasons to endorse a negative assessment of all animal life — both in terms of the harms they inflict and the harms they endure — regardless of whether other animals can be said to have vices or not. (Such a view has also been defended with reference to the disvalue of various acts and traits, e.g. by Simon Knutsson.)
I likewise disagree with Cooper's virtue/vice-based answer to why our treatment of other animals is bad — his reply essentially being "because we are bad", because "it manifests our vices and failings" (p. 88). I believe our atrocious treatment of other animals is primarily bad because of the suffering it causes to the victims, not because of the bad moral character that this treatment displays, even if that may also be a reason to consider it bad.
The book also delves into how one might respond to its misanthropic conclusions, which I found to be a lacking investigation. In particular, Cooper's discussion of radicalism and quietism (Chapter 8) struck me as rather unclear. He seems to prefer a quietist response, and appears to be against ambitious action (as far as I can tell), yet without much of a defense of this opposition. He seems to set up a false choice between "unrealistic radical ambitions" versus "a modest quietism that is compatible with some efforts to help other beings".
No arguments are made against a position of, say, "trying to proactively work to make the world less bad in the most effective ways possible", although Cooper's (apparent) endorsement of quietism suggests that he does not favor that more proactive and ambitious position. But again, it is quite unclear what Cooper endorses in this chapter.
Finally, I was unimpressed by the section on “Rationality”, which seems to mostly engage with a strawman argument. Cooper writes “Many contemporary philosophers propose that the main requirement for treating animals well is the exercise of reason” (p. 124). But would any philosopher actually agree with that statement? I doubt it. (Cooper does not cite any specific philosophers following the quote above, but he mentions Peter Singer in a later footnote; however, I doubt Singer would endorse that quote of Cooper's, and Singer likewise would not endorse the claims about rights that Cooper spends a lot of time discussing in this section. Note that I say all this as someone who strongly disagrees with Singer's optimistic moral view, and as someone who agrees that optimists like Singer do not pay enough attention to humanity's poor moral character.)
I feel Cooper is quite uncharitable in terms of how he characterizes the views of those who place a strong emphasis on “reason” and “rationality” (e.g. as though such an approach excludes compassion).
November 27, 2018
This book is what I needed! Not a story of 'it's not as bad as uit looks', but a substantiated verdict of 'yes, it is bad' and how to deal with that.
May 5, 2020
A wonderful validation that humankind is awful in its treatment of animals. Mr. Cooper has a caring voice throughout the book that will help you understand your feelings are valid.
May 11, 2022
DNF'd at 70%.
Okay, so hear me out. I know I DNF'd this one but not for the same reasons that I've DNF'd so many others. This is actually a really good book chock full of great information and a solid argument. The reason I DNF'd this one is quite simply because it didn't contain anything I wasn't already aware of. As a vegan of 6 years, an environmentalist, and as someone fascinated with the natural sciences, I consider myself pretty well-versed on vegan and environmental ethics. So, while this is an outstanding work, I simply got bored with it purely because it was only reciting the same things I've already come to understand years ago.
With that being said, this should be a STRONG literary candidate for anyone who has recently become interested in veganism, animal ethics, environmentalism, and ecology. I highly recommend this book for pretty much anyone who isn't already familiar with the aforementioned topics. It will surely open many eyes and minds.
The one criticism about the book itself that I have is that it can be a bit monotonous. While there is a lot of great information within the pages, it lacks character in its delivery. While I know that this is written on a serious subject which deserves all of our attention, it really does need a little humor or lightheartedness to hook the reader. It took me about 6 months to get through it because I would get bored with it, put it down, only to pick it back up again a few weeks later....only to get bored again. Wash, rinse, repeat until I finally put it down for good at 70%. Again, this isn't necessarily a testament to the quality of the book itself, but more so the fact that, for me, it was kicking a dead horse (I know, that's a horrible horrible horrible analogy for a book about animal ethics. LOL)
Regardless, this is still a great read and I hope that it one day gets far more of the attention it deserves.
Okay, so hear me out. I know I DNF'd this one but not for the same reasons that I've DNF'd so many others. This is actually a really good book chock full of great information and a solid argument. The reason I DNF'd this one is quite simply because it didn't contain anything I wasn't already aware of. As a vegan of 6 years, an environmentalist, and as someone fascinated with the natural sciences, I consider myself pretty well-versed on vegan and environmental ethics. So, while this is an outstanding work, I simply got bored with it purely because it was only reciting the same things I've already come to understand years ago.
With that being said, this should be a STRONG literary candidate for anyone who has recently become interested in veganism, animal ethics, environmentalism, and ecology. I highly recommend this book for pretty much anyone who isn't already familiar with the aforementioned topics. It will surely open many eyes and minds.
The one criticism about the book itself that I have is that it can be a bit monotonous. While there is a lot of great information within the pages, it lacks character in its delivery. While I know that this is written on a serious subject which deserves all of our attention, it really does need a little humor or lightheartedness to hook the reader. It took me about 6 months to get through it because I would get bored with it, put it down, only to pick it back up again a few weeks later....only to get bored again. Wash, rinse, repeat until I finally put it down for good at 70%. Again, this isn't necessarily a testament to the quality of the book itself, but more so the fact that, for me, it was kicking a dead horse (I know, that's a horrible horrible horrible analogy for a book about animal ethics. LOL)
Regardless, this is still a great read and I hope that it one day gets far more of the attention it deserves.
November 19, 2021
Not bad
I would have personally taken a different approach with this book, but I respect the author’s efforts to take the route that he did. This book’s style was also very approachable.
I would have personally taken a different approach with this book, but I respect the author’s efforts to take the route that he did. This book’s style was also very approachable.
July 18, 2020
The book isn't written well. The author talks in circles throughout the pages and it quickly becomes redundant.
September 13, 2026
This felt like talking to a friend in a way I've not yet experienced outside my home. He kept going and going and I kept feeling more and more like I was reading my own daily thoughts and angers. ♥︎
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews