• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Are sociopaths victims? (Or: The Origin of Evil)

Amadeus

Amadeus

Chews the Cud
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
6,081
Reaction score
3,216
Location
Benghazi
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
This question has occasionally crossed my mind.

A sociopath is basically someone who lacks empathy or a conscience. It is not technically considered a mental illness, but it is a disorder. It cannot be cured (that I know of). Even though sociopaths can choose between right and wrong, how can they be expected to choose correctly if they can't relate to the experiences of others?

I think that evil (or what we consider evil) ultimately comes from this area of the brain. To reference a recent post, would Hilter have acted as he did if he could relate to the suffering of the Jews? Was he evil, or did evil overtake him because that part of his personality didn't correctly function?
 
"who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men" (The famous saying of the crime-fighting vigilante, The Shadow.)

Hitler was determined. he worked from the end of WWI to avenge Germany's loss, and restore it's 'rightful place' in Europe.
His deeds were surely evil as we call them
 
Amadeus said:
This question has occasionally crossed my mind.

A sociopath is basically someone who lacks empathy or a conscience. It is not technically considered a mental illness, but it is a disorder. It cannot be cured (that I know of). Even though sociopaths can choose between right and wrong, how can they be expected to choose correctly if they can't relate to the experiences of others?

I think that evil (or what we consider evil) ultimately comes from this area of the brain. To reference a recent post, would Hilter have acted as he did if he could relate to the suffering of the Jews? Was he evil, or did evil overtake him because that part of his personality didn't correctly function?
Click to expand...

Confusing psychobabble with philosophy leads mainly to confusion and disconnect with reality.

People who lack emotional empathy can make rational decisions as can others.
 
Paleocon said:
Confusing psychobabble with philosophy leads mainly to confusion and disconnect with reality.

People who lack emotional empathy can make rational decisions as can others.
Click to expand...

Sure, but they are at a severe disadvantage. They don't have all the tools to make a 'moral' decision, because are fundamentally amoral. Not by choice.
 
Amadeus said:
This question has occasionally crossed my mind.

A sociopath is basically someone who lacks empathy or a conscience. It is not technically considered a mental illness, but it is a disorder. It cannot be cured (that I know of). Even though sociopaths can choose between right and wrong, how can they be expected to choose correctly if they can't relate to the experiences of others?

I think that evil (or what we consider evil) ultimately comes from this area of the brain. To reference a recent post, would Hilter have acted as he did if he could relate to the suffering of the Jews? Was he evil, or did evil overtake him because that part of his personality didn't correctly function?
Click to expand...
Not victims but certainly it could be said they are malfunctioning
 
Ultimately, few people do things to intentionally be evil. They do them because they can't override the compulsions that laws say are illegal.
 
Amadeus said:
Sure, but they are at a severe disadvantage. They don't have all the tools to make a 'moral' decision, because are fundamentally amoral. Not by choice.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the premise that morality is fundamentally emotional. Morality is fundamentally a rational issue, thus sociopaths are fundamentally on the same level as us, but accidentally disadvantaged.
 
Paleocon said:
I disagree with the premise that morality is fundamentally emotional. Morality is fundamentally a rational issue, thus sociopaths are fundamentally on the same level as us, but accidentally disadvantaged.
Click to expand...

How can one make a rational decision while lacking the empathy/conscience component? It is like asking someone with congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP) to avoid injury in the same manner as everyone else. If you can't feel pain, how can you make a rational decision to avoid injury? Everyone else can feel the pain and realize that they are in danger, whereas the CIP sufferer cannot.
 
Amadeus said:
How can one make a rational decision while lacking the empathy/conscience component? It is like asking someone with congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP) to avoid injury in the same manner as everyone else. If you can't feel pain, how can you make a rational decision to avoid injury? Everyone else can feel the pain and realize that they are in danger, whereas the CIP sufferer cannot.
Click to expand...

Again, you're going on the premise that morality is emotional.

A person generally determines that they're in danger of injury through pain, thus a person with CIP is severely impaired in this regard. However, whether or not an act is moral is a matter of rational judgment, thus why individuals with impaired reasoning capability are excused or partially excused from behaving morally. The only way in which CIP or sociopathy would affect morality would be in certain prudential judgments, for instance whether or not to place one's hand on some particular surface, or whether or not to express some particular sentiment at some particular place and time.

Things like murder are wrong regardless of how anyone feels.
 
Amadeus said:
This question has occasionally crossed my mind.

A sociopath is basically someone who lacks empathy or a conscience. It is not technically considered a mental illness, but it is a disorder. It cannot be cured (that I know of). Even though sociopaths can choose between right and wrong, how can they be expected to choose correctly if they can't relate to the experiences of others?

I think that evil (or what we consider evil) ultimately comes from this area of the brain. To reference a recent post, would Hilter have acted as he did if he could relate to the suffering of the Jews? Was he evil, or did evil overtake him because that part of his personality didn't correctly function?
Click to expand...


Right and wrong are subjective. I think it would be better posed as legal v. illegal choices.

I think I heard somewhere that sociopaths and geniuses tend to cluster in the same parts of the Myers-Briggs Personality Test
 
From what I know about sociopaths they feel emotions that are much stronger than regular people. But they come to conclusions that are pragmatic.

And if you want to talk about Hitler, was he not emotional about the brutal Treaty of Versailles? In his own mind wasnt he doing the right thing? He was a pretty emotional dude you would have to admit. I do not agree with The History Channel that Hitler was "the most evil man in history". Only people with slave morality would believe that nonsense. Hitler and the National Socialists liked Nietzsche. Were they all 'sociopaths'? Can you take an individual or group and turn them into 'sociopaths'? Was Nietzsche a 'sociopath'? You can argue that the National Socialists had a warped understanding of Nietzsche's thinking but to claim that you would need to present an honest description of National Socialist philosophy and have an ability to understand it, and I do not think that many can do that, or are prepared to. Maybe these 'paths' are a prelude to the Overman.

You people with slave morality enjoy slave morality propaganda like Charlottes Web. Is this really a good thing? Should the runt be eaten by its mother to save an existence full of suffering? It is common for animals to eat the runt or leave it to die and it is also for the best. Now this runs in to the fact that westerners for the most part are against euthanasia and abortion and screening to prevent babies being born with disorders and making that illegal. Why should even a midget be allowed to breed? Why should a midget have the right to pass on their suffering to another life? Why should even a poor person be allowed to breed? They are bringing runts into the world that will live a life of suffering for no good reason. Slave morality encourages and ensures devolution of society. You want to get all upset because the Nazi killed retarded people but the way they saw it they were just putting them out of their misery and removing disorder from their gene pool. Two independent doctors had to sign off on any retarded German that was euthanized.

Infanticide was very common in most ancient cultures. It would be cruel to allow a baby with deformities to live to any rational person.

Anyway, why is it that you have this slave morality? Christianity. Christianity produces weak minded slaves and that is what most western people are. That is why abortion is such an issue in America and why abortion is such a big issue. You see that western places that have become essentially atheist are more likely to be in favour of abortion and euthanasia.

You slave morality people need to watch Old Yeller again I reckon. And stop being so sentimental.

edit- To me the 'Special Olympics' is sick and disgusting. Only a society based on slave morality would celebrate handicaps and disorders in such a way.

It makes me sick to think of all the people in the world with 'special needs' and in my opinion it must be illegal for any individual to knowingly pass on their suffering, in form of genetic disorder, to their offspring.
 
Last edited:
Paleocon said:
Again, you're going on the premise that morality is emotional.
Click to expand...

There are several components to morality. The ability to empathize with other people is a fundamental part of the equation. Anyone can say that murder is wrong, but if you don't have an emotional connection to other people, then it's just a law that you obey because it is more beneficial than otherwise to obey it. Yes, that's rational, but it's also amoral.

Morality that is determined by law or religious decree exists only for as long as those are constraints.
 
Amadeus said:
There are several components to morality. The ability to empathize with other people is a fundamental part of the equation. Anyone can say that murder is wrong, but if you don't have an emotional connection to other people, then it's just a law that you obey because it is more beneficial than otherwise to obey it. Yes, that's rational, but it's also amoral.

Morality that is determined by law or religious decree exists only for as long as those are constraints.
Click to expand...

You're still going on the same premise. Look, emotions could drive a person to commit murder. Morality is not emotional. And morality dictates that one should obey the law, both natural and positive.
 
Paleocon said:
You're still going on the same premise. Look, emotions could drive a person to commit murder. Morality is not emotional. And morality dictates that one should obey the law, both natural and positive.
Click to expand...

You're also conflating emotion with empathy. Yes, there is an emotional component to empathy, but empathy is the ability to relate to another person. To put yourself in their shoes. While emotion may cause one to commit murder, empathy would prevent or mitigate the possibility of that action from occurring.
 
spangledbanner said:
From what I know about sociopaths they feel emotions that are much stronger than regular people. But they come to conclusions that are pragmatic.

And if you want to talk about Hitler, was he not emotional about the brutal Treaty of Versailles? In his own mind wasnt he doing the right thing? He was a pretty emotional dude you would have to admit. I do not agree with The History Channel that Hitler was "the most evil man in history". Only people with slave morality would believe that nonsense. Hitler and the National Socialists liked Nietzsche. Were they all 'sociopaths'? Can you take an individual or group and turn them into 'sociopaths'? Was Nietzsche a 'sociopath'? You can argue that the National Socialists had a warped understanding of Nietzsche's thinking but to claim that you would need to present an honest description of National Socialist philosophy and have an ability to understand it, and I do not think that many can do that, or are prepared to. Maybe these 'paths' are a prelude to the Overman.

You people with slave morality enjoy slave morality propaganda like Charlottes Web. Is this really a good thing? Should the runt be eaten by its mother to save an existence full of suffering? It is common for animals to eat the runt or leave it to die and it is also for the best. Now this runs in to the fact that westerners for the most part are against euthanasia and abortion and screening to prevent babies being born with disorders and making that illegal. Why should even a midget be allowed to breed? Why should a midget have the right to pass on their suffering to another life? Why should even a poor person be allowed to breed? They are bringing runts into the world that will live a life of suffering for no good reason. Slave morality encourages and ensures devolution of society. You want to get all upset because the Nazi killed retarded people but the way they saw it they were just putting them out of their misery and removing disorder from their gene pool. Two independent doctors had to sign off on any retarded German that was euthanized.

Infanticide was very common in most ancient cultures. It would be cruel to allow a baby with deformities to live to any rational person.

Anyway, why is it that you have this slave morality? Christianity. Christianity produces weak minded slaves and that is what most western people are. That is why abortion is such an issue in America and why abortion is such a big issue. You see that western places that have become essentially atheist are more likely to be in favour of abortion and euthanasia.

You slave morality people need to watch Old Yeller again I reckon. And stop being so sentimental.

edit- To me the 'Special Olympics' is sick and disgusting. Only a society based on slave morality would celebrate handicaps and disorders in such a way.

It makes me sick to think of all the people in the world with 'special needs' and in my opinion it must be illegal for any individual to knowingly pass on their suffering, in form of genetic disorder, to their offspring.
Click to expand...

...

...

...

...Well, I haven't seen this particular breed of socialist before.


...Okay then.
 
While we're talking, I'm curious about your definition of a slave mentality. Would this quote of you not be an example of a slave mentality? It professes that the individual exists to serve the state. Surely, this is more akin to slavery than the first post of yours I quoted.

spangledbanner said:
edit- Non-liberals like me and Putin believe that Freedom belongs to the State. Not to the individual.
Click to expand...
 
Amadeus said:
You're also conflating emotion with empathy. Yes, there is an emotional component to empathy, but empathy is the ability to relate to another person. To put yourself in their shoes. While emotion may cause one to commit murder, empathy would prevent or mitigate the possibility of that action from occurring.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I don't see why a sociopath would be unable to consider a matter from another point of view intellectually.
 
Paleocon said:
Again, you're going on the premise that morality is emotional.

A person generally determines that they're in danger of injury through pain, thus a person with CIP is severely impaired in this regard. However, whether or not an act is moral is a matter of rational judgment, thus why individuals with impaired reasoning capability are excused or partially excused from behaving morally. The only way in which CIP or sociopathy would affect morality would be in certain prudential judgments, for instance whether or not to place one's hand on some particular surface, or whether or not to express some particular sentiment at some particular place and time.

Things like murder are wrong regardless of how anyone feels.
Click to expand...

Morality and behaviour are conditioned and genetically driven, not rational at all.

Amadeus said:
You're also conflating emotion with empathy. Yes, there is an emotional component to empathy, but empathy is the ability to relate to another person. To put yourself in their shoes. While emotion may cause one to commit murder, empathy would prevent or mitigate the possibility of that action from occurring.
Click to expand...

I think overall you should differentiate between sociopathy with psycopathy. In all fairness the terms are often used interchangably but I think you can differntiate based on enviromental influences vs genetic biological and environmental but also the extremities of behaviour and criminality and the inability to work within societal norms even if not being able to conform to them.
 
Paleocon said:
Fair enough. I don't see why a sociopath would be unable to consider a matter from another point of view intellectually.
Click to expand...

I see intellect as giving one capacity, like a machine, but little else. Wisdom is the ability to apply intellect by using experience. And experience is heavily influenced by the emotional component. If you remove or blunt one aspect of the human equation, I'm not sure if that person is wholly responsible for the outcome of the personality it creates.

Not trying to excuse sociopaths, much less Hitler, just airing some random thoughts.
 
As a sociopath, I really don't give a damn about those other sociopaths. String 'em all up, for all I care. Meanwhile, I'll go on causing people ungodly, unimaginable suffering just because I can. And I expect you all to overlook whatever I do, because I was born that way. Just can't help myself.
 
matchlight said:
As a sociopath, I really don't give a damn about those other sociopaths. String 'em all up, for all I care. Meanwhile, I'll go on causing people ungodly, unimaginable suffering just because I can. And I expect you all to overlook whatever I do, because I was born that way. Just can't help myself.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, a sociopath makes decisions amorally, not immorally.
 
cowen70 said:
Morality and behaviour are conditioned and genetically driven, not rational at all.
Click to expand...

This is contradicted by basic observation.

Amadeus said:
I see intellect as giving one capacity, like a machine, but little else. Wisdom is the ability to apply intellect by using experience. And experience is heavily influenced by the emotional component. If you remove or blunt one aspect of the human equation, I'm not sure if that person is wholly responsible for the outcome of the personality it creates.

Not trying to excuse sociopaths, much less Hitler, just airing some random thoughts.
Click to expand...

Why do you assign wisdom as being emotional?
 
Paleocon said:
Why do you assign wisdom as being emotional?
Click to expand...

I don't. I think that experience influences wisdom, and emotion influences experience.

You can experience life without emotion to some extent (e.g. anhedonia), but the wisdom derived from that life would likely be inapplicable to most people.
 
Jesse Booth said:
While we're talking, I'm curious about your definition of a slave mentality. Would this quote of you not be an example of a slave mentality? It professes that the individual exists to serve the state. Surely, this is more akin to slavery than the first post of yours I quoted.
Click to expand...

No. This is an aristocratic concept. Perhaps to understand you would need to possess a transcendent ego. Or overego. Us Overpeople will create a state that offers security to all. This is civilized. The State can offer this. Not the individual. Freedom belongs to the State. Freedom does not belong to the individual or to nature. Freedom belongs to the State.

There can be no freedom if there is no order. Montessori knew this. Jack London did too. And General Zod.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom