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

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 04-12-2012, 16:22

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** · 04-12-2012, 16:43

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

**Tellos Athenaios** · 04-12-2012, 17:51

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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** · 04-12-2012, 18:48

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** · 04-12-2012, 19:35

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

**HoreTore** · 04-12-2012, 21:17

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

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** · 04-12-2012, 21:30

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** · 04-12-2012, 23:34

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.