Hatred, as best as I can define it, is a hardening of the heart fuelled by anger against perceived enemies. Does anything good ever come from anger and hatred? Hatred of enemies sounds like a good idea, but as Nietzsche put it, be careful of turning into a monster yourself.

  • 1
    Whilst interesting, this question will attract many opinion-based answers and is therefore not a good fit for this site. I'm therefore voting to close this as primarily opinion-based. See the help center and this meta post for more information. – user2953 Mar 8 '15 at 18:00
  • 5
    @Keelan But isn't philosophy an opinion-based subject matter? – Michael Lee Mar 8 '15 at 22:12
  • 5
    Perhaps you mean to ask if there are moral systems where hatred can be a virtue? Or do you mean game-theoretically (and/or practically), is "hatred" an effective strategy? – Rex Kerr Mar 9 '15 at 1:34
  • See the two links I gave you. – user2953 Mar 9 '15 at 4:33
  • I disagree with @Keelan, this question is a valid ethics question, even if the way the question was asked seems subjective. – Alexander S King Mar 9 '15 at 14:17

Like all basic emotions, hatred is surely an evolutionary adaptation, so it is clearly good for something. In particular, evolutionary theory suggests that genes coding for "never hate" and genes coding for "always hate" probably tend to die out pretty quickly, while more nuanced "hate under these circumstances" genes tend to fare much better. But this is an oversimplification, of course, for example due to pleiotropy.

If you want a more philosophical answer, I suggest editing the question to ask "is hatred ever justified?" or some variant thereof.

Briefly, my thoughts about this modified question:

  • I don't think that hating a particular ethnicity or gender is ever justified.
  • Nonetheless, certain groups probably have the property that hating their members is justifiable, for example you could build a pretty convincing philosophical argument that it is morally justifiable to hate the group that we might call "emotionally cold people incapable of empathy whom get a buzz out of hurting or otherwise dominating others." Although to be honest, I think it would be exhausting to carry such strong emotions; much better to simply dislike this group, and to simply not give a darn about their well-being; after all, they don't give a darn about yours.
  • It may be justifiable to hate certain ideologies, such as white supremacy, especially if those ideologies themselves promote hate or otherwise unfairly dehumanise certain groups of people. On the other hand, it could be argued that it makes more sense to carefully and thoughtfully argue against ideologies that promote hate, rather than to hate those ideologies ourselves. Once again, let me just point out that hating an ideology sounds pretty exhausting, and that there are much better ways to work for change in the world.
  • Stack Exchange is not a network for exchanging opinions, but rather factual information. This answer essentially isn't more than stating your opinion. Please improve this question by providing references to philosophers supporting your theory (or delete your answer). For more information, see this meta post. – user2953 Mar 9 '15 at 14:02
  • 3
    @Keelan, unfortunately, I find your comment distinctly anti-philosophical. Philosophy should be, and largely is, based on the idea that we should justify our opinions not with appeals to authority, but with arguments. Yet you seem to be saying that if I provide references to philosophers supporting my opinions, then this would improve my answer. Nonsense; appeals to authority belong here sparingly, if at all. If anything, the answer would be improved by laying bare the assumptions and thought process that lead to these opinions, and then taking those assumptions... – goblin GONE Mar 9 '15 at 15:29
  • ... treating them as opinions, and deconstructing them. Wash, rinse, and repeat. In any event, no matter how far you go with this process, you will always find more assumptions, i.e. opinions. Now you may retort: "But you're missing the point; we're not here to philosophize, we're here to learn about philosophy." To which I would retort; no, you're missing the point; learning about philosophy without philosophizing is exactly what we shouldn't be doing; this is just putting our faith in authority, which is the antithesis of what this should be all about. – goblin GONE Mar 9 '15 at 15:29
  • 1
    In any event, every sincere answer that makes specific claims is fundamentally factual, the fact being: "This is what I believe." Including references of the form "This is what someone else believes" doesn't make it any more factual. – goblin GONE Mar 9 '15 at 15:32
  • 1
    @Keelan, did you even read the comments that I posted? This platform should not distinguish opinions by whose opinions they are, since this is not the relevant factor; furthermore, philosophical doctrines are opinions. And yes, I read the post you linked. – goblin GONE Mar 9 '15 at 16:06

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.