"being a mean person" might not be as bad as being a mass murderer or an arsonist, but certainly meanness is a moral flaw. Take a look at the synonyms:

unkind nasty spiteful foul
malicious malevolent despicable
contemptible obnoxious
vile odious loathsome
disagreeable unpleasant
unfriendly uncharitable
shabby unfair callous
cruel vicious base low
horrible horrid hateful
rotten lowdown beastly
bitchy catty shitty

Harm causing, all. Bad news. — Bitter Crank

Some personality-types and leaders think meanness gets their point across. Perhaps they think it is effective, or don't call it "mean" but "bluntness" or "direct". When is that line crossed into meanness? Say it is effective. Would mean be immoral or just good leadership (I am NOT saying it is, this is just a hypothetical)? How about in an argument? A mean remark to the person you are arguing with can shut down the argument because it causes the other person to want to disengage. Has the mean person "won" the argument? Is it a pyrrhic victory? When does "wit" or "humor" become "mean" and when is it appropriate to show someone a truth of some kind about that person?

I guess I should say with all this, what are the boundaries of mean and something else?

If it's in the culprits best interest, how could it be a flaw of their personality? It all depends on who answers the question. The supposed mean person, or the one (s) who they're doing something to. — Razorback kitten

So if it's in the best interest of the mean person, it is not immoral? That seems to bypass the very definition of moral, unless you are a complete moral nihilist or perhaps moral egoist (it's moral if it is in your best interest only).

I like people to be honest/to honestly express themselves/to be existentially authentic. So if being an asshole or a bitch is how they authentically feel, I think they should express that. I'm just not going to be hanging out with them if it's a way they regularly are. — Terrapin Station

So hurting someone and being malicious with words is okay as long as you can get away. But can't words also cause trauma in others if done in a very cruel manner?

Actually, it's not so uncommon at all for most people to split off from their own mean behavior and not recognize it for what it really is. I'll never forget a colleague I had years back who had been shamed and humilliated by her doctoral exams committee (mean, insecure people), and she loved to be mean to undergraduate students. Meanwhile, she saw herself as the loving mother of four children. — uncanni

That's a really good point. People have many facets when in different situations. However, it is easier (perhaps?) to tolerate one's own kin than others. Wouldn't it be the easy way out to love one's own kids and then treat other people and relations with cruelty? Is meanness at a workplace ever called for or is it usually always some sort of either character flaw or some hot-tempered thing in the heat of the moment, perhaps from some stressful situation?

This is an interesting response but this would be about the British definition of "stingy" or "ungenerous" when this is more about the asshole kind of being mean. Someone being mean to a person.

IFF one predicates his own morality on the existence and power of moral law, he is immediately immoral, that is, subjectively, by having mean-ness incorporated into his personality, yet only mediately, that is, objectively, immoral if he should subsequently act to treat another subject as an end, by means of the satisfaction of his own feelings of arrogance.

To be arrogant in its various forms, is the prime facilitator for actions that exhibit such immoral conditions in a subject, but does not thereby make such actions absolutely necessary, re: the deviation from which is impossible, for it is not uncommon to witness people generally known for being mean circumstantially acting kindly. — Mww

You'd really have to explain this for me to comment on. So, meanness comes from arrogance?

Do you think all mean acts/people come from a place of unresolved conflict in some past event or trauma? — schopenhauer1

Intuitively I would say yes.

Can it be just a general attitude of the person without being from some past event? What happens if one chooses to freely be a mean person vs. some indistinct prior emotional event? — schopenhauer1

The question would be why one desires to intentionally hurt others, and in otherwise healthy human beings I would relate such a desire to unresolved negative emotion.

I would list intentionality as another aspect of 'meanness', come to think of it.

First, I only have a moral objection to force (when it's nonconsensually applied, and then only with particular criteria).

I don't believe that speech forces any psychological states. And we certainly can't show that it does, even if it were the case that it does.

With something like someone getting offended by something someone says, I think that the person with a problem is the person getting offended (well, at least if they'd rather not be offended). That's what needs to be worked on in that situation. They need to learn to not be offendable--which is possible to do in my view.

I've mentioned this before, and I'm pretty sure I've mentioned it here. I think sometimes that people thinking I'm joking about stuff like that, but I'm not. I'm serious. People who get offended are the problem when that happens, not the person who offended them.

This is an interesting response but this would be about the British definition of "stingy" or "ungenerous" when this is more about the asshole kind of being mean. Someone being mean to a person. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I can see that. Though I think they are connected, it is difficult to think outside your own idioms. I think that spiteful people are always trying to get back at somebody rather than improving things, presumably because they give up hope early on. Thus Brexit?

It's more about the definition of mean. It's in itself not a moral issue. A child taking a toy from another because it wants it and feels jealousy for it, cannot be considered immoral in any way. it's only when it's intentionally meant to be mean that it becomes a moral issue. But even then, one person's mean, is anothers, just. The word 'mean' is too flimsy for a definitive answer about whether being it is moral, or not. I would say it's a perception of another more than a personal trait.

Wouldn't it be the easy way out to love one's own kids and then treat other people and relations with cruelty? — schopenhauer1

How do you see this as an easy way out? From what???

Is meanness at a workplace ever called for or is it usually always some sort of either character flaw or some hot-tempered thing in the heat of the moment, perhaps from some stressful situation? — schopenhauer1

I think the whole point is that there are people who think it's ok to be mean in whatever situation, and I view those folks as lacking control and believing it's ok for them to "act out." Acting out is never ok in my book.

I suppose being mean is like being callous, insensitive, showing a disregard for the feelings and sensitivities of others.

I think “being mean” isn’t so much an aspect of our being or character as it is a method of social relations.

So, meanness comes from arrogance? — schopenhauer1

Yes, but mean-ness could also be pathological, in which case explanations from psychology holds sway. Humans are seldom entirely arrogant, which is an over-abundance of conceit, nor are they entirely humble, which is the containment of it, the two simply naming the major groups under which all our inclinations may be listed.

Non-pathological mean-ness is a variety of arrogance, where a subject thinks himself powerful enough to cause discomfort or displeasure in others, not as a matter of course, but rather as a merely spontaneous incidence, and because this kind of arrogance is a rational rather than physical condition, the influence of our inclinations on our moral disposition may be explained from moral philosophy.

One such philosophy asserts that the highest humility in humans is respect for moral law, which defeats arrogance; as the one goes up, the other goes down. One who holds moral law as the legislative authority in the service of his morality has contained his arrogance in the recognition of a force understood and granted as greater than himself, hence is not apt to mean-ness, hence is not likely to be mean. But then.....nobody’s perfect.

The question would be why one desires to intentionally hurt others, and in otherwise healthy human beings I would relate such a desire to unresolved negative emotion.

I would list intentionality as another aspect of 'meanness', come to think of it. — Tzeentch

That can make sense. What would be the moral way to handle unresolved negative emotions? Also, is it ever appropriate to be mean?

I've mentioned this before, and I'm pretty sure I've mentioned it here. I think sometimes that people thinking I'm joking about stuff like that, but I'm not. I'm serious. People who get offended are the problem when that happens, not the person who offended them. — Terrapin Station

So emotional pain is not a real thing?

Yes, I can see that. Though I think they are connected, it is difficult to think outside your own idioms. I think that spiteful people are always trying to get back at somebody rather than improving things, presumably because they give up hope early on. Thus Brexit? — iolo

Is it ever appropriate to be mean? Spite might be one form of meanness. There can be others though, no? For example, you don't like someone's comment on here because you disagree with it or it doesn't make sense to you, so you bash the hell out of the comment as this or that. When is the line drawn between disagreeing, calling someone out on not having enough knowledge, and being mean?

The word 'mean' is too flimsy for a definitive answer about whether being it is moral, or not. I would say it's a perception of another more than a personal trait. — Razorback kitten

So, what would make it moral or immoral? If the other person thinks it is out of bounds? I'll ask the same thing I asked previous poster: For example, you don't like someone's comment on here because you disagree with it or it doesn't make sense to you, so you bash the hell out of the comment as this or that. When is the line drawn between disagreeing, calling someone out on not having enough knowledge, and being mean?

How do you see this as an easy way out? From what??? — uncanni

I meant, it's easy or easier to love your own children, but not others. Thus I was reiterating your example of treating coworkers and colleagues like shit and maybe not your own children. However, I'm willing to bet that kind of thing bleeds into many spheres.

I think the whole point is that there are people who think it's ok to be mean in whatever situation, and I view those folks as lacking control and believing it's ok for them to "act out." Acting out is never ok in my book. — uncanni

So what is "acting out" and what makes it immoral versus just imprudent or something that some people disapprove of.

I suppose being mean is like being callous, insensitive, showing a disregard for the feelings and sensitivities of others.

I think “being mean” isn’t so much an aspect of our being or character as it is a method of social relations. — NOS4A2

Is the method immoral? Is it simply consequential? Only if the consequences for that person are bad, is it bad? What if a mean person gets a lot of praise from those that admire the mean person for his/her meanness? What if they don't perceive it as mean? What if they do? Does this make a difference for the admirer of the mean person? When can someone judge when someone is mean?

Mean is one of those words whose meaning has changed significantly over time - the original word meant ‘common to one or more people’, which soon became ‘inferior in rank’ and then developed into meaning ‘ignoble, small-minded’. It’s a tricky word to associate with morality.

I think ‘mean’ is always a subjective, relative term. It refers to a value relation between the subject and object, but rather than good/bad, the distinction implies a middle-of-the-road value that is neither good nor bad as such. The similarity to ‘inconsiderate’ mentioned earlier alludes to the lack of intentionality: I don’t think people choose to be mean as such, rather their behaviour towards someone or something is evaluated (by anyone interacting with the relational behaviour) as lacking in intentional kindness, while not involving intentional malice, either.

It’s like: ‘I don’t want to imply that you’re doing it on purpose, but what you’re doing or saying lacks a certain level of kindness that I expect from the exchange’.

Personally, I think withdrawing kindness has no positive effect in any exchange, and there is no call or justification for it under any circumstances. But I wouldn’t call it immoral - I tend not to evaluate behaviour in this way.

If you tell me that I’m being ‘mean’, I would interpret it as a call to consider that my behaviour has fallen below the minimum level of kindness and civility that you expect in the exchange. Of course, I may not agree with your assessment or that the exchange requires that level of kindness - but if I wish to continue the exchange, then we need to reach some level of agreement.

I think mean-ness also relates to humility, so the association with ‘arrogance’ mentioned earlier is another good point. When we call a behaviour out as ‘mean’, we consider our own behaviour in the exchange (or as a rule) to be kinder in comparison. That may not be accurate, but withdrawing kindness as a response to ‘mean’ behaviour is only stooping to their level. If I build someone's self esteem, I am not extracting it from my own or tipping a balance in their favour. When both parties withdraw kindness, then nothing positive will result, and any suggestion otherwise is a matter of ignorance, IMO.

I think continuing to demonstrate the level of kindness we expect from others is the most effective way to eliminate mean-ness in an exchange.

When both parties withdraw kindness, then nothing positive will result, and any suggestion otherwise is a matter of ignorance, IMO. — Possibility

I notice you using "withdraw kindness". I think that's an interesting phrasing as withdrawing kindness assumes that the default is kindness. Perhaps that isn't everyone's default?

I think continuing to demonstrate the level of kindness we expect from others is the most effective way to eliminate mean-ness in an exchange. — Possibility

What if a mean person gets a lot of praise from those that admire the mean person for his/her meanness? What if they don't perceive it as mean? What if they do? Does this make a difference for the admirer of the mean person? When can someone judge when someone is mean? There may be no bad consequences for the mean person. It is like asymmetric warfare if a person is continually nice in the face of meanness. There is an unfair advantage that is being exploited.

Is the method immoral? Is it simply consequential? Only if the consequences for that person are bad, is it bad? What if a mean person gets a lot of praise from those that admire the mean person for his/her meanness? What if they don't perceive it as mean? What if they do? Does this make a difference for the admirer of the mean person? When can someone judge when someone is mean?

I suppose it depends on if the meanness is deserved. If it is deserved it is just, and therefor moral. If it is undeserved it is unjust, and therefor immoral.

I suppose it depends on if the meanness is deserved. If it is deserved it is just, and therefor moral. If it is undeserved it is unjust, and therefor immoral. — NOS4A2

And what is the criteria for just?

Mean people suck.

I notice you using "withdraw kindness". I think that's an interesting phrasing as withdrawing kindness assumes that the default is kindness. Perhaps that isn't everyone's default? — schopenhauer1

Granted, but it’s still relative. When I say ‘withdraw kindness’, I’m referring to a level of kindness or civility that was previously assumed as a default in the exchange.

It’s like when you engage in what you believe is an intellectual discussion, and then someone starts making unfavourable assumptions about your intelligence, education, upbringing or mental health. Now, personally I think a minimum level of kindness or civility for an intellectual discussion is to give people the benefit of the doubt in terms of reasonable intelligence or education - but I know that many people gauge these by certain subjective criteria, and will readily discount the intelligence/education of someone who doesn’t fit that criteria. Of these, there are people who will withdraw kindness at this point - and it shows in their use of language.

What if a mean person gets a lot of praise from those that admire the mean person for his/her meanness? What if they don't perceive it as mean? What if they do? Does this make a difference for the admirer of the mean person? When can someone judge when someone is mean? There may be no bad consequences for the mean person. It is like asymmetric warfare if a person is continually nice in the face of meanness. There is an unfair advantage that is being exploited. — schopenhauer1

This is what I mean about humility. Is it really warfare, or is that just how we perceive it? There are many posters here who begin or enter a discussion with a certain amount of pride in the superiority of their viewpoint. They’ve put a lot of thought and research into it, after all, and many have degrees and experience to back it up. When a fellow poster disagrees, is the aim to win the argument, or is it to reach a mutual understanding? For those who are set on winning the argument, kindness often has no place in the discussion. Does that make them a ‘mean person’, or is it just their approach that is ‘mean’? Should there be bad consequences for this approach?

I think most people who recognise they are being ‘mean’ have either a logical or other value-based justification for refusing to interact with kindness - one that renders their ‘meanness’ neutral in their opinion, rather than good or bad. When others admire someone for being ‘mean’, they view the exchange as warfare and have a similar value-based reason for choosing that particular side.

Many of society’s value structures are based on warfare, tipping scales, finite resources, survival of the fittest, etc. We tend to view humility - like pain, loss or lack - as suffering: something we should strive to avoid at all cost. But humility isn’t a bad thing - it’s essential to the process of life. There is no ultimate position of superiority - to exist we accept humility: there exists always something greater, better, stronger, more important than ourselves.

Kindness doesn’t mean being a mouse. Someone who maintains kindness in the face of meanness is not being exploited - they’re standing their ground, recognising that their inferiority is not something to hide from. It’s just a starting point.

When you do it to hurt someone's feeling intentionally or course. But that doest necessarily mean the intended person is offended in any way. If they appreciate it instead for some reason and no injustice is felt, was said person being mean or simply trying to be? So you can seem mean without trying. You can seem passive whilst attempting to be mean and anywhere in between. What's more, if someone is being mean on purpose, and they succeed, assuming they are judging their own personality, would it not be considered as good? Justified in some way? Simply achieving a desired effect in anything is positive reinforcement.

Truth is meanness can be felt or dished out and it can be either just or injustice. meanness can be felt even when the intentions are good or vice versa. And when it comes to if its a personality flaw or not, again, relies mostly on the judge because what some see as simple retribution or maybe punishment for a wrong, looks to some as mean, others may find it immoral and some think it's all a joke.

Have you ever told a kid off about something and mid sentence realised you had the wrong end of the stick. Then you feel bad for being mean. Even though it felt completely justified a second ago? Therefore it wouldn't be fair for any judge to count meanness as something immoral, being as it pivots on understanding of a situation. My son is 7 now and he gets what mean is. Although many time he considers something mean because he can't see the good in it or he will not realise he's been mean because he couldn't see the bad in it. Meaning what's actually mean, doesn't mean anything.

What is your definition of a mean person or someone being mean?

Is being a mean person a moral flaw, just a personality quirk, or something else?

When is being mean called for (if ever) and when is it not? — schopenhauer1

You might like a mean person IFF s/he is on your side of whatever conflict you can imagine. What does that tell you about us?

I think meanness is natural but all that's natural isn't good. This is the odd thing about morality - it's nature fighting it's own self. One could even say it's mother nature looking in the mirror and discovering that she doesn't like some of her features. I hope she has a plastic surgeon who can fix it.

So what is "acting out" and what makes it immoral versus just imprudent or something that some people disapprove of. — schopenhauer1

Acting out: https://dictionary.apa.org/acting-out Trump is pretty much acting out all the time. He's a deeply traumatized child.

Morality concerns the way we behave and relate to others (and to ourselves); let's leave imprudence and disapproval aside.

What would be the moral way to handle unresolved negative emotions? — schopenhauer1

As for the benign negative emotions: things like physical exercise, talking to a person about the problem, simply counting to ten and taking a big breath.

As for the more deeply rooted negative emotions, it's more complicated. Many people aren't even aware they have them and that they affect their own well-being and that of others. Becoming aware would be the first step, and self-reflection is undoubtedly one of the most important tools for this. For some, self-reflecting may be enough to be at peace with what negative experiences they have had. Others may need psychiatric help.

Also, is it ever appropriate to be mean? — schopenhauer1

I think not. Negative emotions are potentially poisonous to one's own psyche and to those of others. Spreading them creates a cycle; think of the bully that, by bullying others, potentially creates more bullies. I'm sure you are familiar with concepts like the cycle of abuse and the cycle of violence. It benefits no one.

Even as a response to the meanness of another I think it is inappropriate, following the axiom of 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.' Repaying immoral behavior with immoral behavior of one's own can never be considered moral or right.

Yeah, not immoral to me.

I'm someone who wants people to express themselves as they feel like expressing themselves, and who thinks that we need to not put too much weight on things that people say/we need to be at least a bit skeptical of things that people say. — Terrapin Station

Well, sure. But I want to be able to trust people. If I am paying them for that communication or it if is integral to work I am doing or if I have a close relationship with them, or if it would be cruel to mislead me and you are a stranger - iow to knowingly make me waste time.

Let's take each one of those: I don't want a society where I have to ask three people for directions a lot of the time because most people like to fuck with strangers. Of course, when I ask for directions, I assume they might be wrong. But generally I assume they are doing their best. If someone chooses to mislead me, they're a dick for doing that. I won't call the police on them, but they were being an asshole.

Doctors and other professionals would be even more immoral if the intentionally mislead me. I am probably more skeptical than most people in this forum when it comes to conventional medicine, but I do expect them to deal with me responsibly. To not do it affects me emotionally, and it would mean some level of hateful, sociopathic thinkng and attitudes to do it. If one does not believe in morals, fine it isn't immoral, but if you believe in morals, well their is not reason to think speech acts cannot be immoral. They get to express themselves and deal with the consequences, which will include people thinking they are bad people. They are still free. How would my thinking they are assholes or immoral stop them?

And then family/friends. Sorry, that's a callous way to treat someone. Trust is a part of being a social mammal. Of course I have not always been trustworthy. But if I lie about something important, I understand why a friend or family member would be angry and judge it immoral. Because that is part of the reason we get close. I don't want to treat those close to me like I need to treat sales reps. That's part of intimacy, the being able to be much less skeptical.

They can continue to do this, of course. My judgments, just like their speech, do not force them to stop. So, your wanting them to express themselves is irrelevent.

Further they are not expressing themselves. They are doing something else, at least also.

Me, a guy punching me in the shoulder for thinking I cut ahead of him in line, has done something vastly less immoral than the doctor in my example.

I don't feel it's immoral for people to express whatever they want to express, even if it's dishonest, manipulative, etc.--again, be at least a bit skeptical of what people say.

I think this is odd. That guy is dishonest and manipulative - perjorative terms - but not immoral - pejorative term. Could you parse that for me`? To immoral is a larger category, in which one subset of behavior would be dishonest and manipulative behavior.
If you'd described the doctor's behavior as imaginative and thinking out of the box. Well, ok. You don't just it with pejorative terms. But you did use pejorative terms. Why is the pejorative 'immoral' wrong to use?