mmm. I don't think so.
if he's really a misanthrope, he can only argue from a misanthropic stance, otherwise he wouldn't be a misanthrope.
again, using religion as an example, it would be like a jew argueing for a christian idea based on a hindu idea.
you I'm asking you to make a argue for a christian Idea based on a jewish idea- to argue for philanthropy based on misanthropy. really, you argued for philanthropy based on philanthropy
once you trim your arguement's fat and but it into form (taking out what you said that did not contribute to your arguement) you have:
1) It's not their(people's) fault if they are so stupid, they are merely victims. (philanthropic stance)
2) You should help them(people) however you can and feel good about it without expecting any kind of positive reinforcement on their part, (philanthropic conclusion)
3) it will make your world even slightly better. (philanthropic stance)
4) Otherwise, you will be miserable for nothing. (philanthropic stance)
so you have a philanthropic arguement for philanthropy, not the misanthropic arguement for philanthropy you set out to make
Have you ever felt so at one with the world, with the universe, with everything that is, that you were overcome with love?
That is reality. That is the truth. What we make of it is up to us.
-One by Richard Bach