• 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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why? Unless it concerns a matter directly involving emotions, why would emotions influence wisdom?
 
"Liberty is the fruit of slow growth of stable society; is based on the for the respect for the rights of the individual, deeply embedded in the life and habits of the community ; is in its origin an aristocratic idea : of the self conscious individual, certain of himself and his position, and therefore perfectly at ease. It spreads when every mans house becomes "his castle" : yet he must have a house and be safely rooted." - Lewis B Namier/Nationality and Liberty.

USA has never had an aristocracy. Not one strong enough to be open. Never a real one. Your Founding Fathers were not Noble. This is why your ruling class is so insecure and feels that it must have the public insecure and scared rather than secure and happy.

Anyway, the State is the people. To live for the State is to live for yourself. And for your fellow countrymen.

Edit- US 'elites' are like new money barbarian elites. They are not certain of themselves at all. This is the main problem with your society. And with the world since you control the reserve.

Your lack or aristocracy also explains your lack of taste and tendency to substitute vulgar displays of wealth for taste. Read Edgar Allan Poe's essay The Philosophy of Furniture if you don't believe me. Or suspect me of being anti-American.

See Hitler understood quite well that the State is the people. So under National Socialism capital, both public and private, belonged to the State and by extension to the people. National Socialism was nominally socialist. Hitler also encouraged citizens to be happy secure and content.

You knew money liberals could learn a thing from Nobility. The State is not your enemy, it is you. :)
 
Last edited:
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?
Click to expand...

They are expected to choose based on intellect rather than their emotions. Whether or not they feel empathy, they still know the difference between right and wrong at an intellectual level. Yes, they are at a disadvantage, and this should factor into the kind of punishment they receive. Nevertheless, they are responsible for their actions for even though they knew it was wrong (or at the very least that society considers it wrong and being caught carries certain penalties) they did it anyway.

This is not the only mental illness that puts people at a disadvantage when it comes to committing a crime. A pedophile, for example, is severely disadvantaged when it comes to leading a life free of any sex offenses. It's easy for most of us to refrain from molesting children or viewing child porn because we have no interest in those things. But for a pedophile it is difficult. Through no fault of their own, they were born with a condition that makes them attracted to sexual activities that are not legally permissible. Yet we rightfully expect pedophiles to follow the law or face the consequences despite the fact they are at a disadvantage compared to us.

The same could be said about stealing for those with kleptomania or other compulsive disorders, or of assault and battery for those born with a short temper.

Why even draw the line at biology? There are those born into social settings that put them at risk of committing certain crimes and at a severe disadvantage compared to those of born in more affluent settings (think of those born into a drug dealing household, for example).

There will always be things that put some at a disadvantage. Those things may be biological, sociological, or otherwise. Regardless, society depends on obedience of the law even if you are predisposed to breaking it. In fact, one could argue that the whole purpose of punishment is to give those already predisposed to breaking the law a larger incentive not to. ie. You may not care about people's feelings and don't mind murdering them, but you care about your own freedom, so hopefully the threat of a severe sentence will keep you from murdering.
 
Last edited:
cowen70 said:
Morality and behaviour are conditioned and genetically driven, not rational at all.
Click to expand...

Yay. We've got a behaviorism-biopsychology mix on the forum now. My humanism-cognitive preferences in psychological theory are not going to match well with you.

Oh well. Welcome to the forum, and enjoy your stay. While we're talking, you wanna hear a psychology joke?

Pavlov is sitting in a bar drinking. A phone goes off, and he suddenly jumps up and yells, "Oh ****! I forgot to feed the dogs!"

Pretty good, eh?
 
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...



If you are a socialist, then yes, a sociopath like most CEO's, are victims of society, creating havoc with people's lives through no fault of their own.

If you are what people consider this "sane" business, they are a ****ing menace to society and need to be at least monitored at the minor level, and removed from the pack entirely when full blown like serial killers and presidents.
 
CrabCake said:
They are expected to choose based on intellect rather than their emotions. Whether or not they feel empathy, they still know the difference between right and wrong at an intellectual level. Yes, they are at a disadvantage, and this should factor into the kind of punishment they receive. Nevertheless, they are responsible for their actions for even though they knew it was wrong (or at the very least that society considers it wrong and being caught carries certain penalties) they did it anyway.

This is not the only mental illness that puts people at a disadvantage when it comes to committing a crime. A pedophile, for example, is severely disadvantaged when it comes to leading a life free of any sex offenses. It's easy for most of us to refrain from molesting children or viewing child porn because we have no interest in those things. But for a pedophile it is difficult. Through no fault of their own, they were born with a condition that makes them attracted to sexual activities that are not legally permissible. Yet we rightfully expect pedophiles to follow the law or face the consequences despite the fact they are at a disadvantage compared to us.

The same could be said about stealing for those with kleptomania or other compulsive disorders, or of assault and battery for those born with a short temper.

Why even draw the line at biology? There are those born into social settings that put them at risk of committing certain crimes and at a severe disadvantage compared to those of born in more affluent settings (think of those born into a drug dealing household, for example).

There will always be things that put some at a disadvantage. Those things may be biological, sociological, or otherwise. Regardless, society depends on obedience of the law even if you are predisposed to breaking it. In fact, one could argue that the whole purpose of punishment is to give those already predisposed to breaking the law a larger incentive not to. ie. You may not care about people's feelings and don't mind murdering them, but you care about your own freedom, so hopefully the threat of a severe sentence will keep you from murdering.
Click to expand...

Nobody, whether they're born with a lack of empathy or not, ever does something "wrong" just for the sake of doing something wrong. In their intellectual analysis, their actions are completely justified, necessary, and maybe even saintly.
 
spangledbanner said:
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.
Click to expand...

Power corrupts. Do you honestly expect your so-called "Overpeople" to live their lives solely for others? Order is never a constant in society. What happens, over and over again throughout history, is that whatever system is in charge of governing a nation becomes increasingly corrupt, until it is torn apart from without and within, leading to either a) a new government which then restores order, or collapses shortly after its creation, or b) a foreign government takes over, restoring order for a time until it too collapses.

I do not trust some supposedly benevolent group of people to govern my life. And surely, you have read your history. Aristocracies are not what I would call a paragon example of freedom of the people, through the state.
 
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...

I'm not sure if a sociopath chooses his/her behavior based on right or wrong.
"These results force a rejection of the strong hypothesis that emotional processes are causally necessary for judgments of moral dilemmas, suggesting instead that psychopaths understand the distinction between right and wrong, but do not care about such knowledge, or the consequences that ensue from their morally inappropriate behavior." Psychopaths know right from wrong but don

They basically want immediate gratification at any costs even if it hurts someone else. Everything centers around their id. They are incredibly self centered people.
 
Sociopathyology is often in eye of beholder.

Hitler showed empathy towards animals and hesitated to have certain friends/comrades executed, at least until in complete despair in the bunker. He hated the jews. Well so did 98% of germany. They considered the jews to be subhuman, beneath dogs. Their ideology passed down by generations prevented it, not frontal lobe damage, or whatever causes genuine pathology. I certainly would never call the man responsible for the calculating genocide of millions a victim.

But what about the bankers who wrecked the economy and plunged so many into foreclosure? They were awfully indifferent to the pain and revulsion they caused. I've taken classes at a top business school with 20 year olds wanting to join goldman sachs nonetheless. Some *know* they'll be vilified and others seem oblivious. Which are the "victims"?

I would say though that yes, certain people are born with or suffer brain damage that makes them effectively not responsible for actions that the ignorant commonly dismiss as "evil." Psychopaths are known to hurt small animals by age 7. Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia also cause lapse in judgment - one famous example was lincoln's wife chasing him around the yard with a knife.
 
Jesse Booth said:
Power corrupts. Do you honestly expect your so-called "Overpeople" to live their lives solely for others? Order is never a constant in society. What happens, over and over again throughout history, is that whatever system is in charge of governing a nation becomes increasingly corrupt, until it is torn apart from without and within, leading to either a) a new government which then restores order, or collapses shortly after its creation, or b) a foreign government takes over, restoring order for a time until it too collapses.

I do not trust some supposedly benevolent group of people to govern my life. And surely, you have read your history. Aristocracies are not what I would call a paragon example of freedom of the people, through the state.
Click to expand...

Well, did the Roman Empire really ever fall? Maybe the families that have ruled, still rule today. In secret. And maybe it is almost time for them to rule openly again. Perhaps it is their divine right to rule.
 
I have always been fascinated by the concept. Morality as we know it is a construct of the human mind. Our evolved ability to empathize does lead to most of us agreeing on many points of morality, such as it being wrong to murder. But if your brain is wired differently how much are you to blame for not coming to the same conclusion as the rest of us that it is wrong?

It is partly why I don't believe in incarceration as punishment but rehabilitation, or in cases where rehabilitation isn't possible, sequestration from society at large.
 
spangledbanner said:
Well, did the Roman Empire really ever fall? Maybe the families that have ruled, still rule today. In secret. And maybe it is almost time for them to rule openly again. Perhaps it is their divine right to rule.
Click to expand...

This sounds more like a Conspiracy Theories post than Philosophical Discussions. And even if the old Roman ruling families were somehow still in power, they do not have any form of divine right. Nobody does.

I'm beginning to suspect you are somewhat insane, or at the very least, follow Roman tradition by drinking water pumped through a lead pipe.
 
Jesse Booth said:
Yay. We've got a behaviorism-biopsychology mix on the forum now. My humanism-cognitive preferences in psychological theory are not going to match well with you.

Oh well. Welcome to the forum, and enjoy your stay. While we're talking, you wanna hear a psychology joke?

Pavlov is sitting in a bar drinking. A phone goes off, and he suddenly jumps up and yells, "Oh ****! I forgot to feed the dogs!"

Pretty good, eh?
Click to expand...

That is actually amazing! :D

Well I'm not professionally trained on any stretch, if I had went down that route the humanist/cognitive field is very prevalent in my area (all of the councillors tend to be trained in it). I think it and the likes of CBT theories are far more useful for the treatment of people but I do follow the biological and anthropological research of how we developed and what shapes our drives quite closely.
 
cowen70 said:
That is actually amazing! :D

Well I'm not professionally trained on any stretch, if I had went down that route the humanist/cognitive field is very prevalent in my area (all of the councillors tend to be trained in it). I think it and the likes of CBT theories are far more useful for the treatment of people but I do follow the biological and anthropological research of how we developed and what shapes our drives quite closely.
Click to expand...

Glad you liked the joke. :lol:

Anyway, I'm not formally trained in psychology either, asides from studying it in my free time and the high school course I'm taking.

So my choice of psychological theories is popular? And here I thought I was one-of-a-kind.
 
Jesse Booth said:
Glad you liked the joke. :lol:

Anyway, I'm not formally trained in psychology either, asides from studying it in my free time and the high school course I'm taking.

So my choice of psychological theories is popular? And here I thought I was one-of-a-kind.
Click to expand...

Well if you are using humanist in the psychology sense yes. Largely it means the focus is on conscious assumptions and behaviours and on our own concepts of self and beliefs. That if you can bring about a conscious change it will lead to conscious changes in behaviour. Councillors tend to study it because of the nature of the work they do, a huge amount is grief counselling and I do think its appropriate that they do what they do in the way they do it. A more clinical approach would probably be less helpful.

Not so sure it can tell us anything about what is true or not in the human perspective. Its the soft science approach to psychology and one that does not sit well with our scientific understandings and experiments in how we work and consciousness. It certainly isn't suited to deal with understandings of things like sociopathy and psychopathy. You see to understand those we can actually empirically and evidentially find changes in brain structure that deterministically set our paths.

Psychopaths' Brains Show Differences in Structure and Function, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health
Psychopaths Have Distinct Brain Structure, Study Finds
http://phys.org/news168610123.htm

There is no free will, or duality between yourself and your brain. If you have a lobotomy or damage your frontal lobe you are going to experience dramatic changes in your personality and experiences of the world. Your decisions and everything about you undergoes big changes

A favourite explanation of this for me comes from abnormal psychology, the causative analysis. Where each behaviour can be said to have causes all of which are interdependent:

Abnormal Psychology ch. 3: Causal Factors and Viewpoints flashcards | Quizlet


etiology the causal pattern of an abnormal behavior

necessary cause a condition that MUST EXIST for a disorder to occur (i.e. cause X exists for disorder Y to occur)

sufficient cause a condition that GUARANTEES the occurrence of a disorder
-a sufficient cause may not be a necessary cause

contributory causes a cause that increases the probability of a disorder developing, but is neither necessary nor sufficient for the disorder to occur
-example: parental rejection is a contributory cause to later difficulty in handling close personal relationships

distal causal factors causal factors that occur relatively early in life but may not show their effects for many years
-may contribute to a predisposition to develop a disorder
-example: loss of parent early in life

proximal causal factors causal factors that operate shortly before the occurrence of the symptoms of a disorder
-crushing disappointment at work is a proximal causal factor of depression

reinforcing contributory cause a condition that tends to maintain maladaptive behavior that is already occurring
-example: extra attention that comes when you are ill

causal pattern the term "causal pattern" is used when more than one causal factor is involved
-for example: condition A, B, C leads to condition Y

If Disorder Y occurs, then Cause X must have preceded it. Necessary Cause

If Cause X occurs, then Disorder Y will also occur. Sufficient Cause

If X occurs, then the probability of Disorder Y increases. Contributory Cause
Click to expand...
You can have a look at that link if any of that is new to you. There is a bit more than that truly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom