I wouldn't fully judge a position based on other people's motivations. It's more the difference between, do I want politician X to be brought up on charges beca

I wouldn't fully judge a position based on other people's motivations. It's more the difference between, do I want politician X to be brought up on charges because I take glee in him suffering and going to jail? Or do I want him to be brought up on charges because I have identified the actual moral/legal/ethical standards that I believe all politicians should subscribe to, and do I believe that failure to meet those standards is justification for prosecution (in all cases) in order to protect society? Someone else might enjoy that politician's suffering if they are brought up on charges, but it's definitely not a necessary feeling if it's a just outcome. So I wouldn't argue that "enjoying someone else's suffering" is sufficient to guarantee you're on the wrong side, but I would say that it's not necessary - and therefore, if any just outcome can be found without feeling satisfaction in the person's suffering, then we should individually seek to be free of enjoying the suffering of others. And encourage other people of that as well. It's simply not necessary. And I would argue that if enjoying the suffering of others becomes a larger part of your motivation, you are definitely more susceptible to be in favor of actions that are otherwise unsupported or wrong. So, new heuristic - if the chief reason for visiting some justice on someone is because it would make them suffer, be suspicious and don't join in unless you can find an independent justification for that justice.