Why is it wrong to take pleasure in the misfortunes of others?

[HoreTore]

So, I was at a conflict management-seminar yesterday. It was quite boring, unfortunately. I'll spare you the details.

At the end of it, after 6 hours, there was a discussion about various emotion and how they could play a part in a conflict, like jealousy, anger, humiliation, happiness, etc etc. The structure was first identifying how the emotion felt like, then when it was positive and negative, then what actions the emotion could trigger and lastly when it played a part in a conflict.

One of the emotions discussed was happiness. We came to the part about when happiness could be negative, and most agreed that happiness was negative when it resulted from the misfortunes of others, like getting happy when someone else is hurt. It was just taken as factm without any arguments backing up the assertion. So, HoreTore changed from bored to pain-in-the-ass, and asked the following question:

Why is it bad to feel happiness at the misfortunes of others? If it doesn't result in a negative action from me, why is it negative for me to experience a positive feeling? I'll feel good about myself and the guy getting hurt wo 't be affected, so how can it be wrong?

I certainly got the audience engaged in a collective hissyfit, but I didn't get the arguments I was looking for. So, Backroom, can you do better?

[gaelic cowboy]

I suppose it might have something to do with a downgrading of your own empathy for the affected party.

Since we can safely say there is some sort of evolutionary use for empathy maybe the group doesnt like that you prefer self satifaction over group safety/involvement. (i dunno we all scrambling in the dark here)

[rvg]

Why is it bad to feel happiness at the misfortunes of others?

Perhaps it would be more accurate to drop the "why" bit.

[spankythehippo]

It isn't "bad" to feel happiness at the misfortune of others. But it depends on how you define "bad". If you mean morally wrong, then, yes, it is bad. And it also depends on the severity of the misfortune. If someone fell down a flight of stairs in a Three Stooges kind of way, I'd laugh. But if a man lost everything, including loved ones and material possessions, I'd feel indifferent (although the average person would feel bad).

So I don't see what the fuss is all about. Besides, happiness is a personal attribute. You can't give someone happiness. You can do things that will make them happy. If they're happy to see you, then your mere existence is enough to satisfy them.

So why should it matter to others whether someone is experiencing schadenfreude? It's not harming anyone.

EDIT: Take a look at my signature. I find it hilarious (especially when the tail flops down), and yet, the guy could have had a concussion. In this case, I'm laughing at the stupidity of the situation.

[HoreTore]

Perhaps it would be more accurate to drop the "why" bit.

No, because the why-bit is exactly what I'm after. I don't care about what people think of it, I'm only interested in arguments against it.

[rvg]

No, because the why-bit is exactly what I'm after. I don't care about what people think of it, I'm only interested in arguments against it.

It's a loaded question though. You can't ask "why is it bad" until you have established that it is bad.

[HoreTore]

It's a loaded question though. You can't ask "why is it bad" until you have established that it is bad.

Sorry if my OP was unclear: it had already been established that it is bad.

[Vuk]

Don't feed the troll.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Because people don't want to live in a world where individuals take pleasure from another persons unhappiness. It's just not nice.

Really is the OP that mechanical that all he can think about is the direct outward consequenecs of his actions, without regard to empathy or decency or anything...

[HoreTore]

Because people don't want to live in a world where individuals take pleasure from another persons unhappiness. It's just not nice.

Really is the OP that mechanical that all he can think about is the direct outward consequenecs of his actions, without regard to empathy or decency or anything...

Where did I say that I think it is right to take pleasure in the suffering of others, Rhy?

[Noncommunist]

I suppose because it's likely that it would encourage people to try to cause misfortune in others. People are often squicked at people who have odd fetishes, even if they don't actually act on them. It just seems like too great of a risk to take. Also, for those who are feeling pain, I'd imagine it would feel awful if you knew there were people enjoying your pain. So while it may not be harmful in and of itself, it certainly seems like a gateway to harmful things happening.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Why is it bad to feel happiness at the misfortunes of others?

It's not always, e.g. feeling happy about Bin Laden getting killed. Some weenies were upset about people celebrating that which I thought was funny.


If it doesn't result in a negative action from me, why is it negative for me to experience a positive feeling? I'll feel good about myself and the guy getting hurt wo 't be affected, so how can it be wrong?

It's bad to be a douche.

You're right though, the systematic moral theory most people use to reason about this stuff will go into contortions here.

[Andres]

I agree that feeling happy about the misfortune of others is not "bad" as in "it causes harm to others" (well, assuming you're not laughing in the face of the misfortunate which will make him feel even more miserable).

It's also not always "bad" to laugh at the misfortune of others. Laughing when somebody stumbles and falls in a comical way doesn't make you a bad person who lacks empathy. Sometimes, laughing with your friends' misery may actually be a way to cheer him up, just like laughing with your own misery might sometimes be an excellent way of dealing with it and overcoming it.

However, if you start feeling happiness when you see parents mourn over their child who just died from cancer, you may want to visit a therapist as that doesn't seem very healthy to me :shrug:

[Tellos Athenaios]

You're right though, the systematic moral theory most people use to reason about this stuff will go into contortions here.

Actually the only interesting bit about the post. For instance by the same token why it's not bad to be happy about the death of Osama Bin Laden, it's not bad to be happy about the death of Sasaki Kojiro, or me or anyone else for that matter... The moral framework is actually fairly simple and needs no contortions. It's just utterly uncompromising: don't wish unto others... Specifically to be happy about the death of someone is linked to being willing to cause that death, which in turn is firmly out of order.

Which brings us back to the why is it bad to be happy about the misfortune of others. It is not "bad" in the sense that it is evil, it is problematic in that it provides the root for undesirable traits to develop. For instance laughing about the suffering of others can develop into "pranks" which are designed to cause such suffering. Which is clearly wrong. Similarly small children are told not to do certain things to little animals: their behaviour might just be play/curiosity, but the same behaviour tends to morph into closely related behaviour of violence and abuse (rape in particular) in adults.

The point is that people tend to do or seek out things that make them feel "good", especially children who do not yet have the "boundaries" firmly internalised. So we're taught boundaries that are a little further away from actual bad behaviour, in the hope we don't go there. Likewise we are taught to be kind to others, to be helpful and to have empathy, which is also at odds with merely pointing and laughing.

[HoreTore]

I sense circular logic in the moral argument.

For this to cause further negative behaviour, then the original action must be percieved as negative. Ie. one bad things makes further bad things happen. But then we have just assumed that the action is bad, we haven't made any arguments as to why it is bad.

If laughing at others misfortune is good, then it would lead to further good behaviour, not further bad behaviour, wouldn't it?

[Tellos Athenaios]

I sense circular logic in the moral argument.

For this to cause further negative behaviour, then the original action must be percieved as negative. Ie. one bad things makes further bad things happen. But then we have just assumed that the action is bad, we haven't made any arguments as to why it is bad.

What? The moral argument is about wishing unto others, not about what certain behaviour might lead to. The latter is just a practical application of hard earned lessons handed down from parents to their children in an easy to digest rule of thumb: don't do it, it's really better if you don't.

There is no reasoning in there at all, it just so happens to prevent actual bad behaviour. It's not bad because it's bad, it's bad because the stigma of bad triggers the self-control parts of your brain in any well adjusted person. That, in turn makes you avoid doing the really bad stuff.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's not always, e.g. feeling happy about Bin Laden getting killed. Some weenies were upset about people celebrating that which I thought was funny.

-cries- I just wanted America to not be so bloodthirsty....

[HoreTore]

What? The moral argument is about wishing unto others, not about what certain behaviour might lead to. The latter is just a practical application of hard earned lessons handed down from parents to their children in an easy to digest rule of thumb: don't do it, it's really better if you don't.

There is no reasoning in there at all, it just so happens to prevent actual bad behaviour. It's not bad because it's bad, it's bad because the stigma of bad triggers the self-control parts of your brain in any well adjusted person. That, in turn makes you avoid doing the really bad stuff.

Ah. It's bad Just because.

I'll check the "no argument at all"-box.

[ajaxfetish]

I think I'd come at it the same direction gaelic cowboy did. We are very social critters, and we rely on each other to be successful and live well. We depend on others helping to care for us, so we reward behavior that shows concern for the welfare of others. When someone shows pleasure at the misfortune of another, that is a warning sign that they lack empathy. Perhaps they would be less likely to behave in a way that would benefit you. I don't think it has anything to do with the specific instances involved. Logically, it may make sense to take pleasure in a given instance of misfortune, and as you note, the act of taking pleasure itself certainly doesn't cause harm. I think we just subconsciously treat it as a symptom of antisocial tendencies, a sign of undesirable character traits, which could prove harmful to the greater society or any of the individuals living within it. Just my speculation, though. I could of course be way off.

Ajax

[HoreTore]

That's something I could certainly agree to, ajaxfetish, and kudos for putting it well.

However.

In the argument that it is a sign of antisocial tendencies, one would've already concluded that the act is bad, wouldn't you? As such it doesn't explain why the act itself is bad, it only points to consequences if the act is deemed bad.

[Papewaio]

Total Cost.

Fight/flight reaction and laugh/Cry reaction.

Biggest use in empathy is inspiring a person to either prevent an accident as they feel the damage and consequences with foresight. Secondary benefit is when it inspires someone to help post injury. Family and group survival are enhanced.

Laughing at a person who injured themselves would be a harsh lesson that may stop them or others in the future doing something that was both obviously risky with no real benefit. Peer pressure to conform by losing status due to failure at risk taking. So I can see several reasons why we would laugh at someone's misfortune.

=][=

As for Bin Laden it would have been better ROI to normalize him by due process in a court of law.

However I do get satisfaction not joy at the removal of someone from the human species who enjoyed the deaths of over three thousand of his fellow humans in an act of terrorism.

[Kralizec]

It isn't "bad" to feel happiness at the misfortune of others. But it depends on how you define "bad". If you mean morally wrong, then, yes, it is bad. And it also depends on the severity of the misfortune. If someone fell down a flight of stairs in a Three Stooges kind of way, I'd laugh. But if a man lost everything, including loved ones and material possessions, I'd feel indifferent (although the average person would feel bad).

So I don't see what the fuss is all about. Besides, happiness is a personal attribute. You can't give someone happiness. You can do things that will make them happy. If they're happy to see you, then your mere existence is enough to satisfy them.

So why should it matter to others whether someone is experiencing schadenfreude? It's not harming anyone.

EDIT: Take a look at my signature. I find it hilarious (especially when the tail flops down), and yet, the guy could have had a concussion. In this case, I'm laughing at the stupidity of the situation.

I've always thought it was odd that there's no English word for "schadenfreude" (or "leedvermaak" in Dutch).

If you have a neighbour who you dislike because he owns a Mercedes and flaunts the fact, you'd probably manage a chuckle when said car gets severely damaged in an accident. Probably not when he is severely injured as a result. A lot of people felt somewhat amused when during the height of the financial crisis many bankers and other financial wizards found themselves without jobs. But when they hear that suicide rates among those professions have risen dramatically, the mood becomes grim. This might be because 1) physical wellbeing isn't directly connected to the reason why said people are disliked, or 2) people generally see health and physical wellbeing as being much more important than material wealth, or 3) both.

On a marginally related note, I'm a moral degenerate who is greatly amused by all sorts of obscene humour*. If you know any good holocaust or dead baby jokes, please PM me. That said, I do realize that if I were jewish or had children of my own, I might not be able to appreciate those catagories. I'm sure however that plenty of jews and/or parents can manage a laugh when confronted with a retard joke. The whole point of those jokes is that they're funny because the subject is obnoxious or morally wrong, and the person who tells it and the person who laughs because of it both realize that the subject is wrong. If it's just a joke, then it's not wrong to be amused.

When would it be wrong to feel happy or amused by anothers suffering? I suppose when you start making exceptions. If you feel sorry for a neighbour, whom you barely know, who has cancer, yet laugh at that other neighbour who drives a Mercedes and just heard he has AIDS, than that'd be wrong. Just saying.

* Except jokes about Frysians. That's racist.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I've always thought it was odd that there's no English word for "schadenfreude" (or "leedvermaak" in Dutch).

There is, it's called "schadenfreude". English just takes words from other languages like that.

[spankythehippo]

There is, it's called "schadenfreude". English just takes words from other languages like that.

This just shows how ignored I am. I mentioned schadenfreude. :(

[Slyspy]

Who said that? Did anyone hear anything?

[Strike For The South]

The Golden Rule

Horetore I remember when used to talk about tangible things, Now you're being smug

[HoreTore]

The Golden Rule

Horetore I remember when used to talk about tangible things, Now you're being smug

Bah! It's much more fun to debate when we're not restricted by our own perspectives. We're still restricted by the perspectives we actually know about, but that tends to be a lot more.

And I'm fascinated by things which we all agree on, but which we at the same time find it very hard to make a proper argument about...

[HoreTore]

This thread needs some examples!

Example 1:
I remember one episode from my footballing days particularly well. We had eliminated another team in a cup by a late scorer from a corner kick. I felt good at the win and the progression. However, the reason I remember it so well is another. After the game, during the hand-shaking, I noticed the kid who had lost the header that lead to the goal was crying. Like a baby. That made the victory taste infinitely sweeter. Wrong?

Example 2:
Kid A and Kid B had an exam. Both expected to get an A, and both expected the other to get an A. They had done so in previous exams. However, Kid A got an A, Kid B got a B. Kid A felt much better abiut this A than the previous A's, because Kid B got a B. Wrong?

Example 3:
Back to HoreTore's footballing days. I played for Mjøndalen, our arch-rivals were Birkebeineren. Whenever we faced them, my main motivation wasn't winning. Nor was it the gloating rights. My main motivation was the fear that if they won, they would feel good about beating us. That they would feel good at my loss inspired my to do my utmost in every game against them. Is it still wrong of them to feel good about my loss when it inspired me to perform better?

[rajpoot]

In my opinion, morality itself can be a function of the relation between two people.
Your team and the other football team were rivals. Your degree of rivalry justified you feeling happy about them losing/not letting them feel happy by losing.
Bin laden and the peaceful world were rivals (or to put it better enemies) so it was justified to be happy when he died.
Obviously if you feel happy when your rival football team dies, that's not right.....that's going too far.

On the other hand ideally we should not be happy about the misfortunes of others at all. We should all be saints and good men, who help our neighbours, who don't look at women we aren't married to with any untoward thoughts, who do not hate or participate in any excesses. That however, just isn't going to happen as far as I know.

And most importantly, you shouldn't laugh at others because if it's a big guy, he might well slug you right there and then, and laughing with missing teeth does not make a pretty picture.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's pretty simple as far as I can see.

Pleasure at another's misfortune implies that one enjoys the suffering of other itself, i.e. enjoys inflicting pain, or one fails to empathise with another human being.

Nobody wants to be involved with a psychopath, it's bad for your health.

Or

It's wrong because God says so, take your pick.

[ajaxfetish]

In the argument that it is a sign of antisocial tendencies, one would've already concluded that the act is bad, wouldn't you? As such it doesn't explain why the act itself is bad, it only points to consequences if the act is deemed bad.

I guess this is how I see the connection working. Empathy links self-interest to altruism. If you feel pain yourself when another feels pain, then you do not want others to feel pain, because it hurts you. This would motivate you to avoid harming others, because that would cause you pain, and to protect others from harms committed by a third party, because that will similarly protect you from pain. If you feel pleasure when another feels pain, then you would want others (in general, or a smaller group, or an individual) to feel pain, because it pleases you. This would motivate you to harm others, and to allow third parties to harm them.

We can trust others generally to do those things which are good for them, so if they have a selfish reason (empathy) to be altruistic, we feel it is safe to trust them to be altruistic. But when they lack a selfish reason for altruism, or worse, have a selfish reason to harm others, we do not feel safe trusting them to be altruistic. So we feel safe around people who exhibit empathy, and we do not feel safe around people who show a lack of it (aka psychopaths).

Whether or not an instance of schadenfreude is itself harmful, it demonstrates this lack of empathy, and the conclusion is that the one having a laugh at another's misfortune is unreliably altruistic. The injured party's pain did not inspire suffering in the gloater, and if I am injured, my pain may not inspire suffering in them either. I want others to suffer with me, so that they will be motivated to help me, so I will reward behavior showing empathy and discourage behavior that does not show it.

Does that make any more sense? (Mind you, I'm not positive I understand your point properly to begin with, so this may not be addressing it at all)

Ajax

[ajaxfetish]

This thread needs some examples!

Example 1:
I remember one episode from my footballing days particularly well. We had eliminated another team in a cup by a late scorer from a corner kick. I felt good at the win and the progression. However, the reason I remember it so well is another. After the game, during the hand-shaking, I noticed the kid who had lost the header that lead to the goal was crying. Like a baby. That made the victory taste infinitely sweeter. Wrong?

Example 2:
Kid A and Kid B had an exam. Both expected to get an A, and both expected the other to get an A. They had done so in previous exams. However, Kid A got an A, Kid B got a B. Kid A felt much better abiut this A than the previous A's, because Kid B got a B. Wrong?

Example 3:
Back to HoreTore's footballing days. I played for Mjøndalen, our arch-rivals were Birkebeineren. Whenever we faced them, my main motivation wasn't winning. Nor was it the gloating rights. My main motivation was the fear that if they won, they would feel good about beating us. That they would feel good at my loss inspired my to do my utmost in every game against them. Is it still wrong of them to feel good about my loss when it inspired me to perform better?


Example 1 feels wrong to me impressionistically.
For example 2, my impression is that the pleasure is not felt at B's failure itself, but rather that B's previous pattern of success indicates B is smart, and B's lower grade on this test indicates that the test is particularly hard; hence A's greater pleasure at their grade on the current test is because it is a perfect score on a more difficult test. So, B's failure is a measure of the difficulty of the accomplishment, and A's pleasure is at A's own accomplishment rather than B's failure.
For example 3, feeling good about your loss strikes me as wrong, whereas feeling good at their own success against a rival would be more akin to the test example.



I think there may be a complication here with the rivalry issue. As tribal creatures, perhaps we suspend our expectation of empathy when the injured party is some 'other.' Your teammates may not expect the same empathy from you when a rival team suffers as they would in other circumstances. At its worst, this kind of suspension of empathy would be what makes genocides and the like possible, but it's probably common to all of us in its milder forms. That doesn't make it a good thing, but it's probably an inevitable thing.

Ajax

[HoreTore]

One can always count on the mormon! Well put! I'll go tinker a little, and see if I can come up with more ~;)

[The Stranger]

it really depends on the moral code/system, doesnt it...?

a (christian) kantian will give you a different answer than a utilitarianist

[Ironside]

For example 2, my impression is that the pleasure is not felt at B's failure itself, but rather that B's previous pattern of success indicates B is smart, and B's lower grade on this test indicates that the test is particularly hard; hence A's greater pleasure at their grade on the current test is because it is a perfect score on a more difficult test. So, B's failure is a measure of the difficulty of the accomplishment, and A's pleasure is at A's own accomplishment rather than B's failure.



I think there may be a complication here with the rivalry issue. As tribal creatures, perhaps we suspend our expectation of empathy when the injured party is some 'other.' Your teammates may not expect the same empathy from you when a rival team suffers as they would in other circumstances. At its worst, this kind of suspension of empathy would be what makes genocides and the like possible, but it's probably common to all of us in its milder forms. That doesn't make it a good thing, but it's probably an inevitable thing.

Ajax

Example 2 often contains a lot of gloating. So, nope it's often a lot about beating the other.

To add on the rivalry, one big thing about schadenfraude is that it's creating rivalry.

I wonder if the friendly version is actually a sort of establishment of that the friendship is strong enough to endure it.

[Divinus Arma]

Please rephrase your argument.

First may I leave absent the "why"?
In what context is your defined understanding of wrong? Moral, Kantian, Deontological, Darwinian... Superstition?

[Beskar]

Depends on situation.

- A Banker going to jail for his involvement in destroying the world economy would bring satisfaction that Justice has prevailed.

- Some one who just got beaten up and mugged, then has you grinning at them, it is an negative as it is seen as an assault upon the other persons dignity and attack on their self-worth for no justifiable reason.

[rvg]

- Some one who just got beaten up and mugged, then has you grinning at them, it is an negative as it is seen as an assault upon the other persons dignity and attack on their self-worth for no justifiable reason.

Unless that person is your mortal enemy and you hate him with every fiber of your being.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

Cringe.

[HoreTore]

Please rephrase your argument.

First may I leave absent the "why"?
In what context is your defined understanding of wrong? Moral, Kantian, Deontological, Darwinian... Superstition?

The why is what I'm interested in knowing. How you define wrong is entirely up to you.

[Strike For The South]

Do unto others.

As far as I'm concerned, this conversation is a highbrow circle jerk.

You have do nothing other than act like a child. Simply becuase you can repeat "why" 1000 times does not make your question valid to discourse. It only makes you hard headed

[gaelic cowboy]

The why is what I'm interested in knowing. How you define wrong is entirely up to you.

Well you were already told about the evolutionary reasons for empathy so there is your WHY straight away.

[HoreTore]

Do unto others.

As far as I'm concerned, this conversation is a highbrow circle jerk.

You have do nothing other than act like a child. Simply becuase you can repeat "why" 1000 times does not make your question valid to discourse. It only makes you hard headed

I got the answer I was looking for from ajaxfetish, my dear texan ~;)

[The Stranger]

I got the answer I was looking for from ajaxfetish, my dear texan ~;)

you got other answers too anyway but you did not find them convincing. doesnt mean they werent given.

[Ja'chyra]

Q - Why is it wrong to take pleasure in the misfortunes of others?

A - It's not

[HoreTore]

you got other answers too anyway but you did not find them convincing. doesnt mean they werent given.

I got some one-liners. I was looking for something a bit more wordy.

[HoreTore]

Q - Why is it wrong to take pleasure in the misfortunes of others?

A - It's not


It's perfectly possible to assume that a statement is true even though it's wrong for the sake of discussion ~;)

A football pitch is clearly not round, but you can still assume that it is in order to explore the various arguments one could make for it being round...

[HoreTore]

Another sound argument, thanks.