Is It Easier for Sociopaths?

[Sophus]

Would Nietzsche think it easier for sociopaths to become Overmen? They don't have to worry about pity. Most would seem to live beyond good and evil in the sense that they live life as though it were a game; one big power struggle. Fear is not felt in the same way we do. So.... have sociopaths been Nietzsche's heroes all along?

A second question... is life in general easier for the sociopath?

[Will]

They can't comprehend why the rules of the social contract are what they are, so they have a lot of trouble following them. Though, after the death of the god construct in a society, there's generally a realigning of ethics and morality, some things are truly universal; murder, theft, violence, etc. are things that us non-sociopaths all understand innately as bad or wrong, but a sociopath may have serious trouble comprehending and thus putting into practice.

Society necessitates empathy, even a society sans religion.

[Ihateusernames]

They can't comprehend why the rules of the social contract are what they are, so they have a lot of trouble following them. Though, after the death of the god construct in a society, there's generally a realigning of ethics and morality, some things are truly universal; murder, theft, violence, etc. are things that us non-sociopaths all understand innately as bad or wrong, but a sociopath may have serious trouble comprehending and thus putting into practice.

Society necessitates empathy, even a society sans religion.

I may be wrong but I'm not entirely sure you can substantiate the claim that "murder, theft, violence, etc." are innately bad or wrong. Maybe harmful toward another human, but that also calls into question what makes harming another human wrong? (and, yes any answer to that will lead to an infinite regress of why questions. :secret:. take away those things and is there really any solid reason other than personal opinion to NOT kill someone I hate? doesn't it become my desire vs yours? (or even my desire vs you and your friends if you want... or you and the rest of the world... the amount of players on the side of a flimsy I like vs you(s) don't like argument doesn't really seem to influence anything imo)

[Will]

I may be wrong but I'm not entirely sure you can substantiate the claim that "murder, theft, violence, etc." are innately bad or wrong.

I'm referring to evolutionary sociology more than philosophy. When you kill another human (other than in self-defense), steal, or commit other acts of premeditated, inexcusable violence, you disrupt the social equilibrium. The social equilibrium, overall, was necessary for survival in a tribal society. Based on this, we can infer that certain things are generally not okay and those that understand that have a better chance at surviving to pass on their knowledge or genetic predisposition affirming the stable society to the next generation.

[Ihateusernames]

I'm referring to evolutionary sociology more than philosophy.

Ah that makes more sense. My brain was stuck in philosophy mode, sorry 'bout that!

Personally if morals are a byproduct of evolution I can understand how things like in-group murder are "wrong" in he frame that somehow group survival is important (in regards to survival's importance I disagree but my opinion here is irrelevant.) However I can't quite understand why we consider out-group murder or theft necessarily wrong.  Out-group murder or theft could end up having bad consequences, yes, however done in a wise way it has the potential to greatly strengthen my in-group (or gene's potential for survival if you go neo-Darwinian in the argument.)

If you consider AIDS free humans as our "in-group" wouldn't killing everyone with AIDS and hypothetically eradicating the AIDS virus be technically good for human survival under the before mentioned paradigm? IMO if our current morals are just evolved, and thus blindly (and poorly) created, we really need to get on the ball and start doing what we would currently consider to be unethical things that would be beneficial (like attempting to eradicate diseases in gru-ewwwwie-some ways.)

Sorry if this sounds harsh, I'm really stuck in an ethical nihilism rut and can't get out of it and it frustrates me, but lacking a god it seems the only logical rout to go.

-Ihateusernames

[Tanker]

IMO if our current morals are just evolved, and thus blindly (and poorly) created, we really need to get on the ball and start doing what we would currently consider to be unethical things that would be beneficial (like attempting to eradicate diseases in gru-ewwwwie-some ways.)

Sorry if this sounds harsh, I'm really stuck in an ethical nihilism rut and can't get out of it and it frustrates me, but lacking a god it seems the only logical rout to go.

That is definatly an etheicly nihilistic view is is also an.... incomplete understanding of evolution. For instance unguided by inteligence is a far cry from "blind" and and further from "poor". Little about evoluton is random as creationists would have the world believe. They like to play on the phrase "random mutation" without properly explaining it and usually diliberatly taking it out of context. Natural selection rarely leaves "poor" results and just like survival of the fittest helps to keep a species gene pool in top shape it does the same with social interactions (as common in the animal kingdom as it is in ours) generaly evultion driven moral and social contracts are better and more concise then the ones man tries to instil.

The problem with wanting a etheicly nihilst approch to the world is you need to be either a scociopath to use unethical methods or at the least employ sciopaths. Of course it's easy to talk about puting others "out of their misery" but what happens when a friend or love on comes down with a curently incurable disease would you be happy to volunteer them to be put down? What happens if you get a disease that makes you a drain on scociety will you kil yourself or willingly walk in hospital room knowing your won't walk out. Treeting the ill is not just a moraly correct thing to do it's a social contract too. We help the ill knowing its a drain on the whole because we would want our our frieds, family, and ourselves treated were any to get sick.

Sorry for the digress.

[Ihateusernames]

That is [definitely] an [ethical] nihilistic view is is also an.... incomplete understanding of evolution. For instance unguided by [intelligence] is a far cry from "blind" and and further from "poor". Little about [evolution] is random as creationists would have the world believe. They like to play on the phrase "random mutation" without properly explaining it and usually [deliberately] taking it out of context. Natural selection rarely leaves "poor" results and just like survival of the fittest helps to keep a species gene pool in top shape it does the same with social interactions (as common in the animal kingdom as it is in ours) [generally] [evolution] driven moral and social contracts are better and more concise then the ones man tries to [instill].

The problem with wanting a [ethically?] [nihilistic] [approach] to the world is you need to be either a [sociopath] to use unethical methods or at the least employ [sociopath]. Of course it's easy to talk about [putting] others "out of their misery" but what happens when a friend or love on comes down with a [currently] incurable disease would you be happy to volunteer them to be put down? What happens if you get a disease that makes you a drain on [society] will you [kill] yourself or willingly walk in hospital room knowing your won't walk out. [Treating] the ill is not just a [morally] correct thing to do it's a social contract too. We help the ill knowing its a drain on the whole because we would want our our [friends], family, and ourselves treated were any to get sick.

Sorry for the digress.

I just completely disagree random selection being blind and sometimes rather bad is not a creationist strawman effort against evolution, its built into evolutionary theory.  If you want to discuss this point more by all means please ask. I also take concern that you systematically apply biological evolutionary theory into social evolution and assume they work identically.  I can go around screwing with social evolution through my ability to rationally think and communicate ideals and if I'm charismatic enough drastically effect rather rapidly social "evolution" (think Hitler)  social evolution is a different topic completely.

also, I hate to say it, but isn't your post a perfect example of what I was talking about in a my opinion vs yours problem?  what makes my opinion about killing weak people less good than yours?  Because you like yours more than mine? that is at least what it sounds like to me. Hopefully you can provide something more solid as it would be very welcomed.

Anyway, in regards to your questions about putting friends and family down, I believe if morality is purely evolved, and we are striving to continue to survive and evolve (because that IS what we are assuming so far in this thread) emotional problems with putting the sick down really don't matter.  Yeah it'd suck, but technically it would be immoral to NOT kill them as it risks exposing billions more with a deadly virus.  This does seem to make 'morals' seem like useless things doesn't it, when  the whole "right thing" by almost everyone's standards would be technically immoral.  Kinda the opposite of what morality is supposed to be!

Anyway logically speaking its either ethical nihilism (the depressing outcomes of ethical nihilism annoy me) or some sort of absolute morality (which imo obviously needs a higher-being foundation to destroy the my opinion vs yours, as a higher beings opinion would trump human opinion.)

I understand this dilemma isn't new, but its what I'm stuck on.  

BTW, this DOES have relevance to the original post, in that assuming ethical nihilism, the sociopath is imo more accurately living out our meaningless existence than any of us being constrained by "moral" duties and attempting to have "meaningful" lives (be it through existentialism, religion, or whatever) and thus 'easier' philosophically speaking. Practically speaking though the sociopath will totally have a sucky life, seeing as us more normal moral agents (be it deluded evolved morals OR absolute morals) will throw them in jail : P

-ihateusernames

[Tanker]

While I will fully admit that evolution is usually increadably slow and the process can be sloppy, messy or, inefficient it does however always end with the best results for the given parameters...eventually. I guess my real problem is with the word blind. It is vaque and undiscriptive and implies a watcher (or a watcher not watching) which there isen't.


We are talking about an evolved morality then you disregard evolved emotions. I don't think it's posible to seperat emotions and morality unless you are a sociopath. There are many thing that pure logic can tell you that emotion will then tell you is wrong. Without emotion, morality evolved or otherwise is purely sociopathic from a human stand point. You can't seperate the two without becoming a monster.

Another huge trouble is who sets the line and at what limits. Purely logicly speaking Eugenics makes perfect sense. When you add emotion in it becomes horrific. Where do you draw the line.

[Will]

However I can't quite understand why we consider out-group murder or theft necessarily wrong.

The overpopulated earth is a very, very new thing. For millennia, humans and our ancestors lived in very small roving bands of hunter-gatherers, occasionally meeting up with other bands for things like trade or mating (to ensure a diverse gene pool). Before civilization dawned, over 5,000 years ago (a hair's breath when looking at evolution), which meant that our fates were entwined with every human we met. It wasn't just a responsibility to your own tribe, but often others (when not in competition). If you were hunting and came across another band of hunters being attacked by a predator, you defended them because they were necessary for trade and biodiversity.

Of course none of this makes any sense now that we're six billion strong and growing quickly, exhausting resources far faster than they can be replenished and are warring constantly over what's left. But the left-over innate behavioral predispositions are still there, rooted as deeply inside of us as the urge to eat and mate.

Not so for the sociopath, though. Sociopaths don't have that innate empathy and set of moral predispositions that allow you and I to interact with our fellow moral and empathetic humans, that allow us to adapt easily to whatever social contract we find ourselves in. What is intuitive for us is like learning something entirely alien to them.

If you consider AIDS free humans as our "in-group" wouldn't killing everyone with AIDS and hypothetically eradicating the AIDS virus be technically good for human survival under the before mentioned paradigm? IMO if our current morals are just evolved, and thus blindly (and poorly) created, we really need to get on the ball and start doing what we would currently consider to be unethical things that would be beneficial (like attempting to eradicate diseases in gru-ewwwwie-some ways.)

People with AIDS, if responsible enough not to spread the disease, are still members of the group just as much as 10,000 years ago someone that perhaps had some more benign (or at least not infectious) immune deficiency. Anyway, the field of medicine is very, very old, much older than even speech, so we've learned that some diseases and physical problems can be dealt with and the afflicted can still contribute.

[AlP]

In answer to Sophus' question, "Would Nietzsche think it easier for sociopaths to become Overmen?", I think yes and no. Nietzsche on the overman...

Certainly the condition we are in when we do ill is seldom so pleasant, so purely pleasant, as, that in which we practise kindness.

The Gay Science, page 50 of this translation.

In my opinion, Nietzsche saw what might be described as sociopathy as a potential stepping stone for the overman but not the eventual outcome. He turns it around and considers sociopathy an example of weakness rather than power.

[zandurian]

some things are truly universal; murder, theft, violence, etc. are things that us non-sociopaths all understand innately as bad or wrong, but a sociopath may have serious trouble comprehending and thus putting into practice. Society necessitates empathy, even a society sans religion.

Yes, and that's the great hope of humanity (since most people are not sociopaths).

I may be wrong but I'm not entirely sure you can substantiate the claim that "murder, theft, violence, etc." are innately bad or wrong.

I'm referring to evolutionary sociology more than philosophy. When you kill another human (other than in self-defense), steal, or commit other acts of premeditated, inexcusable violence, you disrupt the social equilibrium. The social equilibrium, overall, was necessary for survival in a tribal society. Based on this, we can infer that certain things are generally not okay and those that understand that have a better chance at surviving to pass on their knowledge or genetic predisposition affirming the stable society to the next generation.

What you outline above is an attempt to explain why a virtually compassionless animal (AKA a sociopath) would mimic moral behavior when in fact it's just the cold hard realities of survival, right? That still doesn't explain why that would ever evolve into empathy just for empathy's sake.

In many many cases it seems that the weakest and least productive are cared for and nursed and sheltered and sacrificed for simply because we have innate empathy. They are a tremendous drain on society yet most of us would never dream of, for example, exterminating a bunch of starving hopeless 3rd world citizens just because they are 'useless' to the rest of the global community. Most of us realize that they are just like us and need help. Very non-animalistic behavior on our part.

I can TOTALLY see why Christians are terrified of this whole ethical nihilism movement. Some scary stuff. My personal belief is that you (Will) have a soul with conscience and the logical part of your mind is just trying to figure out where you got it from  :secret:. [/quote]

You show the dual nature of man nicely and it works exactly the same in religious circles - fear of punishment vs. conscience. In religion or some theistic beliefs - on one end of the spectrum there are sociopathic theists who may 'play nice' because they are terrified of what God may do to them if they don't. With most it's a mixture of fear of consequences and an innate sense of virtue (conscience). On the other end of the spectrum is enlightenment - freedom from the prison of animalistic sociopathic behavior.

[Ihateusernames]

I guess my real problem is with the word blind. It is [vague] and [un-descriptive] and implies a watcher (or a watcher not watching) which there [isn't].

Fine, fine, if you take problem with semantics... if you so desire, substitute 'purposeless' for 'blind'. :crazy:  

You show the dual nature of man nicely and it works exactly the same in religious circles - fear of punishment vs. conscience.

Meh, I disagree. Dual nature of man is because of man's searchings of whether or not morality develops outward from god or outward from evolutionary tendencies. If you think god, you have a reason behind morality outside this world and thus POSSIBLY authentic.  If you think non-theistic evolutionary tendencies then you have no reason for morality other than [strike:2vh827jb]blind[/strike:2vh827jb] purposeless happenstance, which leads perfectly into ethical nihilism.

-Ihateusernames

PS: Sorry if its a tad of a thread drift, however I believe the question of objective vs relativistic morality is somewhat an answer for the second OP question.  Life is easier depending on the definition for the sociopath.  Easier in the sense they most probably don't even THINK about this kind of stuff, so they never get philosophically worn out!

[Renegnicat]

Ihateusernames: It's really quite simple.

Our morals evolved because we wanted to live. Group dynamics living triggered the evolution of traits in people that helped the group. You don't "have" to be moral. There is no should. In fact, if everyone decided not to be moral because they wanted to give the finger to evolution, then that is perfectly possible. As a side note, the result would be our extinction.

That's why we feel we "should" be moral, because years of evolution has conditioned us to want to live, and to not go extinct. There's nothing "philosophically correct" about it at all. Sorry to dissapoint you, bro.

On a side note, you asked about out-group aggression. What do you think war is?  

[Ihateusernames]

Ihateusernames: It's really quite simple.

Our morals evolved because we wanted to live. Group dynamics living triggered the evolution of traits in people that helped the group. You don't "have" to be moral. There is no should. In fact, if everyone decided not to be moral because they wanted to give the finger to evolution, then that is perfectly possible. As a side note, the result would be our extinction.

That's why we feel we "should" be moral, because years of evolution has conditioned us to want to live, and to not go extinct. There's nothing "philosophically correct" about it at all. Sorry to dissapoint you, bro.

Uhh, thanks for unintentionally defining ethical nihilism for us all...  :drool[/quote]

Uhh...x2.  Exactly, war is out-group aggression. I thought that'd be kinda self evident...

Anyway, you really feel that unjustified irrational war and death is morally equivalent to world peace?  Although I suppose assuming ethical nihilism, as you do, being that there isn't a right and wrong at all, you kinda have to.

See, that's the catching point for me.  I am not sure I can REALLY believe that it isn't inherently wrong to kidnap a random stranger off the street, sexually and physically torture them for 20 years for your own pleasure, and then slowly chop off all bits of their extremities until they perish?  If one assumes ethical nihilism, like yourself, I suppose they really can't say there IS anything wrong with that.

What do you think?  Nothing right or wrong in this universe? I'm not so sure about it myself, however atheism+absolute morals causes cognitive dissonance with me.

[Will]

If accurate this may explain the origins of morality, however I often hear "But morals evolved, that's why we are (and should be) moral!"  that's a non sequitur.  I realize you personally have not said "and should be", which nullifies my non sequitur statement in this instance, however I don't understand that if our evolved morality is outdated in the grand scheme of things why we should be moral if we don't want to be.  In fact, I can't justify the word "moral" as even having a point greater than just 'opinion' outside of a theistic worldview.

Hence to me the two options are ethical nihilism or some form of theistic morality.

The origins speak to the innate behavioral tendencies, not to the conscious and intellectual decisions we make every day. Those can be attributed to the social contract, or set of (moral/ethical) behaviors within a society that support stability. The nice thing is that the origins of human morality actually speak to the rules of the social contract. In order for people to, generally, intuitively understand the social contract, we adopt morals which occur innately within the populace. If people are generally born thinking that killing someone else for no reason is wrong, then it makes sense to assimilate that into our social contract so that our society can function properly.

I'm an ethical nihilist in that I recognize that there are no objective ethics, but I am also a believer in group subjective, the ethical fabric of society. Without such a thing, we would quickly devolve into anarchy and my safety and well-being would be put in danger. I don't want that, so as a rational actor, I behave according to the contract.

Well, yeah, obviously if you in essence take away the negative social aspect of AIDS (aka communicability) AIDS isn't really socially bad, but I think that's kinda disingenuous to my point...

It's not, though.

When I was a boy, I had a wire-haird fox terrier named Schnookie. He was a wonderful dog, very smart and well acclimated with family life. He even tried to defend my little brother (in elementary school at the time) from a large and particularly surly Rottweiler. Later in his life, he contracted a bad case of acute pancreatitis. Aware of his sudden and serious ailment, Schnookie instinctively found a very secluded and hidden part of the back yard and then laid down to die in it, separating himself as much as possible from the rest of us. Fortunately, we found him and got him to a veterinarian so that he could be at least given pain-killers. I tell you this because, amongst more social species (like us), there's often a behavioral trigger for self-sacrifice when a possibly-contageous aliment is discovered. This behavior can be seen among not just dogs but monkeys, dolphins, and I believe elephants. Now, this is only an innate, instinctual response, so apply it to an intelligent and rational actor, such as a human that's contracted AIDS. The innate behavior will be to avoid contact so that no one else can contract the disease (you can see this in terminal illness depression), and on top of that the person is likely very much aware of how the disease is transferred from one person to another.

Because both innate behavioral tendencies and the social contract are in place, the idea would be that the disease, after it's been diagnosed, is much, much less likely to spread. The real danger from AIDS is among those that show no signs of it and that aren't aware they have it, something which is often reasonably outside of our control.