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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

• 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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

• 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.

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

- 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.

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

Cringe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

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

A - It's not

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

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...

Another sound argument, thanks.