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?

Is that a statement or command?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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).

"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?

This can be somewhat benign. Lets say I spilled a cup of coffee over my desk and it frustrated me. This emotion then needs to be discharged. I may go for a walk or perform some physical exercise. I may express my frustration verbally towards a colleague. Or I may bottle it up and be moody for the rest of the day. Since the source of frustration is gone, this sort of emotion tends to resolve itself in time. — Tzeentch

I see, you are explaining a possible origin of a mean act or person. Do you think all mean acts/people come from a place of unresolved conflict in some past event or trauma? 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?

While I think meanness is by definition undesirable, I do not think it is indicative of a fundamental character flaw, but instead of unresolved negative emotion. This can be somewhat benign, or it can be rooted in much deeper psychological issues. — Tzeentch

What do you mean by unresolved negative emotion? This is doing the opposite of the other poster who put the burden of the meanness on the observer (calling it an impression). This is putting the sole focus on the mean person (unresolved negative emotion). Should there be any focus on the mean person's action towards the person it is directed at, or are you purposely trying to maintain that the attention should solely be on the mean person, as if an oddity that should just be watched from a distance and have him/her work their negative issues out.

If you used a word that covers the same behavior and intentions of a mean person, but is not pejorative, then perhaps you could say it does not entail them being immoral. — Coben

You'd have to clarify that. What do you mean by pejorative in this case? Are you saying a mean person is someone who expresses contempt (aka pejorative) or someone who is worthy of contempt?

If behaving morally/ethically requires being considerate to others, and being mean is a kind of inconsiderate behaviour, then yes... by definition alone mean people are immoral. — creativesoul

Ok, but then what is the basis for being considerate? At what times should one be considerate and at what times should one not? Is it all the time? Is it good to use as defense against an inconsiderate or insulting attack of some kind?

Differences between American and British English: mean
In the U.S., mean usually describes someone or something that is unkind, cruel, or violent: "It’s mean of you to ignore her.That’s a mean trick!"
In the U.K., mean usually describes someone who is not generous or does not like spending money: "He’s too mean to give a large donation." — alcontali

Yes, I mean the U.S. definition/version. The U.K. definition would be more uncharitable, scrooge-like, ungenerous, stingy, etc.

It is a negative impression that one person has about the behaviour of another person. I think that it requires an incident in which that person has misbehaved. But then again, it does not mean that this person is always misbehaved. It is possible to morally judge an incident, as we have witnessed it, but it is much more difficult to judge a person with all his past and future behaviour. — alcontali

Interesting, besides that it is about "impressions" of the beholder of the mean person, you added something about an incidence of misbehavior. I guess I would like something a bit more concrete. Misbehavior doesn't have to be mean.

It was beneath response. — StreetlightX

Yes, but does the first question pass muster?

That would be a start. — StreetlightX

Didn't answer the first question :D.

What we need is the right destruction of normality, not a preservation of it. — StreetlightX

So when Mike Pompeo doesn't comply with a subpoena to testify to Congress, that's ok because democracy is about "right destruction of normality?" Now the debate is what is "right destruction" of course.

:yawn: — S

Oh thank god you've been tranqualized.

Can I ask your marital status? — Noble Dust

Don't answer that stuff. Why would it matter though?

Right and wrong. From the individual's point of view, our efforts at work or education have approximately NOTHING to do with our individual survival, as you said. But... From the view of collective society, it does. The account clerk at a brokerage, a social worker, a housewife, a city street worker, the check out at Target, etc. are all engaged in the maintenance and reproduction of society as a whole. — Bitter Crank

That is a good point..When is the individual duped by social mechanisms that their labor is meant for them, vs. the collective? The invisible hand perhaps hides this more than other economic hands- usually ones of a dictatorial or totalitarian bent. However, the best way to engender more work from people is to get them to take on the burden of ideology themselves.

Do you think that trends can be controlled in a meaningful way so that we may own as ours or are trends more viral in nature - spreading among the population without any direction or rationale? — TheMadFool

The trend in this case is to create people.

Yeah and?
Do you perceive this trend as a good thing? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

No.. What is wrong with non-existence? Why does a way of life need to be perpetuated? Does it always go back to how parents/progenitors of the culture "feel" about seeing others follow a way of life?

The experience of pain needs to have existed - that is unavoidable. Not only that, but it needs to be an experience we can relate to, otherwise how can we learn from it? — Possibility

This is all assuming we need to learn from it. Why? I will essentially keep asking you that so we can bypass any unnecessary posts. This also contradicts what you said here:

Not everyone needs to experience the pain to grow from it - I agree. — Possibility

But anyways, there is no reason to learn from suffering. In fact, if we didn't procreate, no one will "need" anything- collaboration, interaction, learning, etc.

Process philosophy attributes an experiential aspect to all matter, and quantum mechanics suggests that we cannot overlook the role of an observer or subjective experience in the interaction of matter, so it’s not such a paradigm shift, in my view. — Possibility

Ah the Whitehead thing. I dabble in that. But here you are conflating some sort of material pscyhism, with some sort of animal psychism, and worse, human pyschism. Human mind has a self-reflective aspect- more of the "condemned to be free" kind. In other words, we have choices and we know we have choices. We can simply choose not to have children. Even if I was to grant you the idea that matter "wills", humans have choices, one of them being to not procreate. Simple as that. To say there is an overriding scheme above this (some telos) is to circumvent this idea. You will have to directly address that and not simply assert how telos (and life) will "find a way" like the guy from Jurassic Park. Because, actually no, it is conceivable (if not at all likely), human deliberation at least, can find a way to rebel against the idea that more people should be procreated.

Carbon, on the other hand, is open to a much wider variety of interactions by nature. The specific chemical reactions that contribute to the generation of life open up the variety of these interactions exponentially. — Possibility

Let's be clear, carbon might interact, but it does not make a choice. It does not will. It follows the dictates of various forces like electromagnetism, strong force, electron exchange, etc. The valence atoms interact with other ones to create molecules, etc.

If it really was a case of survival of the fittest, then why do humans produce some of the most fragile offspring, who are built more for maximising awareness, connection and collaboration than for survival? — Possibility

Contingency, contingency, contingency...Human childbirth is/was painful and was much more risky.. you have this big human head and too small pelvic region in female. Why? Human brains are big. Living on the border of forest and savanna, humans stood upright, lost hair, used hands for tools, had some sort of mutation that allowed for language, which made even more changes neurologically and cognitively. This created more of a cultural way of survival vs. hardwired, etc. To suggest we are experiments of some universal telos is not much different than theological ideas of God. Either way, this telos/god would have some explaining to do as to why we need to be It's little experiments. Also, either way, we can choose to no follow the directive of this telos, if we so choose. It can be overridden. The circularity is just pushed back to the telos.. Why do we have to follow the directive of the telos? By the way, I don't endorse this view that there is a telos.. I happen to think we just live in a universe (maybe one of many?) that happened to create self-perpetuating mechanisms which lead to life. No need for some overriding force behind it.. And if it is the universe directed at something, that has no bearing on the individual. Interaction doesn't mean anything other than interaction.. There is nothing above and beyond this. You are making interaction into more interesting or romantic-sounding than it is.

That’s not to say that natural selection doesn’t exist at all. What I propose is a teleological evolution of integrated information systems, in which natural selection is a limiting process that applies to living matter in particular. Mutations that don’t work out are as informative to us in their apparent failure as those that survive, aren’t they? — Possibility

But then, you are looking at this grandiose things, when suffering happens at an individual level.. Yes maladaptation is quite informative, but tell that to the suffering animal who is affected by it. Understanding a larger "narrative" or seeing a cool principle (like "interaction" or "collaboration") as something behind the scenes, does not negate the negatives of individual lives, nor does it add anything to what is the case. These are just fuzzy descriptors. And then what? We still live our lives.. At the end of the day, humans can choose to simply stop putting more people into existence. Somehow people feel though, that a way of life "must" be perpetuated. This is bad faith.. No one needs to live to experience a way of life. "Ways of life" are not some poor fellow that needs a human host in some symbiotic relationship. Rather, the parent is inculcated that their life would be more fulfilled (read less bored and less time to self-reflect) if they were to procreate and then inculcate the new being. Joy and happiness have been weaponized as reasons of control. People need to live a way of life because ya know..joy and happiness.. and a lot of control and suffering. No one needs to be controlled, no one needs to joy and happiness prior to birth.

The Happiness Principle, for instance, argues that pain is immoral - but pain is a call for increased awareness of an incident that requires interaction. To strive to avoid it at all cost is to be ignorant, selfish and continually hard-done-by. And any illusion that perpetuation is a source of pleasure and avoidance of pain is patriarchal at best. — Possibility

I don't know how avoidance of pain is "patriarchial", that seems like a misuse of that word, and a category error of that concept even. What I will say is, if there is suffering and pain in the world, why try to have more people to experience this? If you say because collaboration and learn from it, I will just say that this is circular reasoning. No one needs the pain to grow from it. Collaboration doesn't seem to be anything in and of itself beyond just something that helps individuals and societies function. But to live "for" it? No justification other than the maybe the warm fuzzy feeling the concept provides us? Actually, you said "interaction" for this one.. still sounds about the same as collaboration, but you'd have to explain your difference.

Self-actualisation as a reason for perpetuation ignores the role of humility: that procreation is only achievable through collaboration, for instance. — Possibility

See above about collaboration.

Civilisation progress, on the other hand, discounts the pain, loss and humility of individuals for the sake of promised long-term eradication from a more civilised society - keep perpetuating, and one day your descendants will be pain-free and live forever...? — Possibility

Yes, here I agree.. that is that it is wrong to use people as vehicles for some abstract, non-individual ideology (progress, technological advancement, ego-inflation of the person who thinks they are so innovative and/or good with finance and wants masses to "benefit" from his/her deeds, etc.).

The way I see it (and bear with me - the theory is in its early stages of formulation), the aim of existence as a whole is to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. All matter has initially ‘chosen’ or willed the extent of their participation in the process, and thus the nature of their existence. — Possibility

This just sounds incorrect. Matter chooses? Matter exists, sure. Animals are born from circumstances that occurred in the previous generation, so no individual can participate or will it.. someone actually wills it for the succeeding generation.

Heidegger says that to be human is to exist temporally between birth and death. We strive to deny or ignore it as much as possible, but the reality is that we are ‘living with death’ everyday. If you don’t believe this, then you’re either not paying attention, or you’re in denial as suggested. — Possibility

Granted, but I actually think this matters more in times of complete catastrophe more than most functioning society.. Heidegger's more interesting idea was that of "thrownness" that which we cannot help being born into.. society's makeup, history, and our environmental contingencies, for example.

But pain as a call to be aware, loss or lack as a call to connect and humility as a call to collaborate have each impacted on all matter, not just life, at the most rudimentary levels of existence. Still, life in general has kept saying ‘yes’, so to speak, and evolving more efficient ways to achieve this aim for the benefit of all existence.

Procreation, then, is only one strategy for continuing this process - and long since rendered less than efficient in itself. — Possibility

You are placing some Platonic-like goal in evolution that isn't there. Evolution is not aiming for the benefit of existence. It isn't aiming at anything. The mechanism is self-perpetuating, that is a given, but it is really trial and error, keeping features that work for the animal on an individual level, that then gets propagated to other individuals that would shape a new species in an environmental niche. Of course, what you aren't talking about is the mutations that don't work out, that are detrimental for the individual and the species.

Meaning hunger, cold, thirst, loss, humility, inevitable death and the like once one is alive, yes. Life does not need to perpetuate itself. We like to think it does because it takes the focus off the ultimate loss. — Possibility

I think there is something about happiness principle in there, or self-actualization, or civilization progress, or some such. The ultimate loss is more of an afterthought for most unless you are living with death everyday (nice juxtaposition, living with death). Either way, the perpetuation is for aforementioned reasons or ones of that genre.

life is an imperative — Possibility

Meaning brute life, like hunger, staying warm, thirst, and the like once one is alive or that life needs to perpetuate itself as an imperative (which then of course begs the question why)?

Nonexistence is an absolute rejection of life, a refusal to interact at any level. I agree - this is not depression. To me it’s more of a concept. — Possibility

Yes, nonexistence is kind of the existential foil to any stated reason we perpetuate existence.

Hey its better than the usual sport and hobby above nonexistence notion.

Compassionate X above nonexistence you value.

Fullness of life is an imperative apparently. The alternative is not an emotional state. It is nonexistence. Nonexistence just is being not is. It is not depression.

Pity and self-pity are not cynicism, and not compassion. Instead they recognise a connection, but its one that travels only one way. Pity gives in an attempt to eradicate the suffering of others; self-pity takes and expects others to notice and respond to their suffering. Compassion focuses on a two-way sharing of the experience of suffering, as just one part of this fullness of life to be shared. — Possibility

I call bs..this sounds good but provides nothing but pretend givens. Why is this necessary or desirable? By this mean why is compassion above nonexistence? More platitudes will follow.

But again, in my view you seeing desire as suffering is simply a symptom of your depression, which has causes that you do not want to look at or address. And the cause of your depression is not that "desire is suffering", you seeing life that way is a consequence of your depression. — leo

So why are you interested in this subject. You comment on here about my supposed depression.. What draws you to this subject? Is there something specifically about this that appeals to you to make sure that I make sure that I'm wrong?

Anyways, at the least, I think antinatalism brings up the broader idea of why we have children. I think that in itself is a benefit, whether you agree or not, there is something to be said to actually question what we are trying to do as humans, bringing new people into existence. What do we want them to accomplish? What is it that is so necessary to the universe about humans living out their lives?

What can we agree on? Can we agree that life is not a paradise? Can we agree that harm exists on varying levels for individuals? Can we agree that bringing people into the world is often not reflected upon very much as to what they are hoping the progeny gets out of existence?

But it just so happens that our world has been largely man-controlled, and history tells the story of men behaving badly on the grand stage of things. There's no current need to neuter the term when men systematically kept women outside of all spheres of power and cultural creation. — uncanni

Yes but I think we should separate two aspects- the control aspect and the equality aspect. If men and women controlled the economy, and it was oppressive, then it is just oppression, not patriarchy. Patriarchy only pertains to the equality aspect. That is to say, are men and women getting the fair share of power and access to power.. However, the actual use of that power for whatever system itself can be wielded in any which way by male or female. A female might as well back capitalist tendencies as much as male. There is nothing male about capitalism or communism or any other economic ism really. If I came up with a way of life, and I'm male, that doesn't mean the ism is male, and thus a patriarchy.

@Bitter Crank
I have to say I disagree with you here. Bitter gave a very cogent response to you there. If he was being antagonistic or hostile, he would have been that, but he gave you a lot of justification for his ideas there.

There would have been no need for the term patriarchy, for the founding mothers and fathers would have shared equal responsibility for the results. — uncanni

That's a point that might negate the idea that patriarchy itself is bad. Perhaps it is just control itself. Now sharing power is definitely a problem, but that might be something that can be decoupled from the control aspect itself.