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

**HoreTore** · 04-12-2012, 12:43

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** · 04-12-2012, 12:53

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** · 04-12-2012, 13:00

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

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

**spankythehippo** · 04-12-2012, 13:15

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.

**Kralizec** · 04-13-2012, 00:25

Originally Posted by 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.

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.