Is It Easier for Sociopaths?

[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.

Uhh, thanks for unintentionally defining ethical nihilism for us all...  :drool

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.[/quote]

*sigh*... Ihateusernames: You are approaching the problem from the wrong angle. Stop relying on reason and arguments and logic and start relying on what you see. You have your own moral compass, you simply need to act according to the problem.

Simply put: Correct morality is knowing your situation, knowing cause and effect, and acting according to inherent morality.

I already know what you are going to ask, something along the lines of, "but how can I act according to that inherent morality?" damn it, stop thinking so much! You are in the problem you're in right now because you enshrined reason above all things. And then you gave it increasingly larger sway until it eclipsed even direct experience in importance. But reason is never more important than direct experience.

Don't try to make a system of perfect morality. You yourself already know what's moral, so simply act according to that. Capeesh?  

[Ihateusernames]

But reason is never more important than direct experience.

(Note: I'm at work so sorry this is short, I'll reply in more detail when I get a chance but...)

so.. umm.. pardon me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that if I pray to god and get 'teh tinglies' I should honestly become a theist, as direct experience outweighs reason?

(Notex2: Okkkk back to work! : )

[zandurian]

But reason is never more important than direct experience.

so.. umm.. pardon me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that if I pray to god and get 'teh tinglies' I should honestly become a theist, as direct experience outweighs reason?

If I'm reading Renegnicat correctly it seems he is simply saying (in your example) that if you pray to god and get 'teh tinglies'  then believe you pray to god and get 'teh tinglies'. Even though it's illogical to get 'teh tinglies' when you pray - since you do your experience proves that you do.

[zandurian]

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.

To the portion I bolded: Are you saying that the adopted morals are passed on genetically?

[Ihateusernames]

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.

If you will allow, I'd like to dissect this sentence for a moment.  Would it be fair to change it to "If people are generally born thinking <X>, then it makes sense to assimilate..."?  Now lets postulate some <X>'s that people might be "born with" and still see if it is acceptable.  Or, actually to be honest, since there are no objective morality, wouldn't ANY moral statement fulfill <X>? "If people are generally born thinking murdering homosexuals is good, then it makes..." I just don't seem to think that is acceptable. Now you might say that people only are born with generally "good" moral ideas because they evolved... but if the ideals evolved then they could be ANYTHING, we don't know. I'd say there are a crapload of immoral behavior in this world, and assuming evolution, if moral ideals are inborn, then so are immoral.

And furthermore, assume that I decide it is acceptable to swindle little old ladies. Are my kids now more likely to think it is acceptable to swindle little old ladies? I find it hard to accept somehow concepts are encoded in genes... that doesn't make much sense to me (however if true, I guess I just don't have the gene of comprehending the concept that "understanding concepts are encoded in genes"  :crazy:  :hide:

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.

That's good for you, however the reason I'm so focused on this dilemma is that I have the opportunity right now to do a lot of what would be considered unethical things that are technically not against the law however they harm a fairly large amount of people, but benefit me greatly. My only decision right now is to view my opportunity through ethical nihilism and do it and profit nicely (cus F other people if ethical nihilism is right!) or be a "good" person -- something I can't even philosophically base while maintaining atheism.

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.

Thank you for that story.  It resonated with me because I have my lil chihuahua sitting on my lap and my 16 y/o cat on the next seat.  I do, however, disagree with the conclusions drawn from it.

I'm not sure if you have been at a hospital lately, however I have (cancer's a bitch.)  While there, I noticed a great amount of people visiting others.  In fact I'd wager a majority of the people in the world *want* their family around after being diagnosed with an illness communicable or not.  I assume you could say they are just overriding their instincts... but thats like saying "They are there, I swear! Humans just hardly (if ever) act on instinct!"

On top of that, to assume people stop engaging in sex even *after* being diagnosed with any form of STD is naive at best.  I could do a couple of google searches and find you instances, however I don't need to (note: if you want me to, I will, so please do ask! [/quote]
Would you reeeeally still say that if I said that I believe abortion is morally wrong, homosexuals should be tortured, children are quite tasty human-veal, rape is fun and should be indulged in, stealing is great, and killing anyone that displeases me should be the norm.  I doubt it, but I'll let you answer for yourself.

If I'm reading Renegnicat correctly it seems he is simply saying (in your example) that if you pray to god and get 'teh tinglies'  then believe you pray to god and get 'teh tinglies'. Even though it's illogical to get 'teh tinglies' when you pray - since you do your experience proves that you do.

Wow, If that's honestly what was being said I'm kinda confused.  We are not allowed to draw conclusions from anything?  If I witness that you shoot someone and they bleed a crapload, I then can only be sure that I saw you shoot someone and they bleeded a crapload, I can't take it one step further and draw the conclusion that you murdered someone?

Kinda hard to live life without drawing conclusions.  I'd go so far as impossible.  

-Ihateusernames

[zandurian]

If I'm reading Renegnicat correctly it seems he is simply saying (in your example) that if you pray to god and get 'teh tinglies'  then believe you pray to god and get 'teh tinglies'. Even though it's illogical to get 'teh tinglies' when you pray - since you do your experience proves that you do.

Wow, If that's honestly what was being said I'm kinda confused.  We are not allowed to draw conclusions from anything?  If I witness that you shoot someone and they bleed a crapload, I then can only be sure that I saw you shoot someone and they bleeded a crapload, I can't take it one step further and draw the conclusion that you murdered someone?

Kinda hard to live life without drawing conclusions.  I'd go so far as impossible.  

Maybe I am skimming the posts too fast. IIRC Renegnicat said don't just use logic and reason but use experiences as well when making determinations. You replied that if you prayed and got tinglies should you believe in God and throw reason out, right? My guess is that he was saying use experiences as well as logic and reason, that's all.

I'm old enough to know better than to try and explain what someone else was telling you though! Oppps  

[Renegnicat]

But reason is never more important than direct experience.

(Note: I'm at work so sorry this is short, I'll reply in more detail when I get a chance but...)

so.. umm.. pardon me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that if I pray to god and get 'teh tinglies' I should honestly become a theist, as direct experience outweighs reason?

(Notex2: Okkkk back to work! : )

If you pray to "god" and get "teh tingles", then direct experience has revealed that you got "teh tinglies". Reason is important only so far as it helps you make sense of direct experience. That means direct experience is more important than reason. But that doesn't mean you should completely discount reason.

Both are important. Just, one is more important than the other. But don't choose just one. You can choose both. See?

[Ihateusernames]

If you pray to "god" and get "teh tingles", then direct experience has revealed that you got "teh tinglies". Reason is important only so far as it helps you make sense of direct experience. That means direct experience is more important than reason. But that doesn't mean you should completely discount reason.

Both are important. Just, one is more important than the other. But don't choose just one. You can choose both. See?

I understand part of what you are saying, however it kinda seems substanceless.  let me sum it up: "If you experience something, you experienced something" Thanks! Guess what, if I experienced something, I experienced something, true! And if I experienced experiencing something, I experienced experiencing something, and if I experienced experiencing experiencing something, I experienced experiencing experiencing som... I think you get the point.

Negating this redundancy, the rest of your post is basically telling me to use both reason and experience.  The problem is, how can I know my experience is "good"?  Take the before mentioned example of torture.  I'm sure I could experience extreme enjoyment doing horrible stuff (depending on my mental state) does that mean that it is "good" and reason would then flow from that  that torture is moral?

Its almost as if you are saying experience something, then use reason to solidify the experience.  That's exactly what theists do, yet we call them out on it and ask "how do you KNOW that your experience was authentic!"

Also, just on a side note (again) here's some of your words that might have lead me to believe you were saying abandon reason.

Stop relying on reason and arguments and logic and start relying on what you see.

damn it, stop thinking so much! You are in the problem you're in right now because you enshrined reason above all things.

You yourself already know what's moral, so simply act according to that. Capeesh?

I included the last line because you still haven't answered any of the scenarios I presented.  I hate to be rude but so far all all you have done is have a rather condescending tone and not really answer any of my posed questions or contribute anything really meaningful yet.

meh

-Ihateusernames

[Renegnicat]

...
...
...

how can I know my experience is "good"?

This right here. This is precisely the type of thinking that get's you into trouble. Here's a question, what on earth does it mean for any experience to be "good"? If you experience joy, is that "good"? No. There is nothing you can inherently call "good", that exists in the pleasurable feeling of joy. Joy itself is just an experience. It's not good. It's not bad. It is precisely what it is: A pleasurable feeling that you experience.

Now, reason helps you distinguish between experiences, and divide experience up. But it can't actually explain experience itself. The second it tries to do that, it fails miserably.

There is a lot I could say on the subject. Lot's of clarifications, lot's of things I would like to say to help. But I think that none of that would be particularly helpful right now. It might even do a little bit of harm.

However: If you're looking for an extremely practical solution to your moral dillemma(you said you were in a position to benefit yourself at the expense of many others, and it was legal.), I can provide one:

Do not do to others, what you would not want them to do to you.

That should help you find guidance; a temporary solution while you do more research on the subject.

I would also like to point out a few other points that I'd like to make: You said that the statement, "when you experience something, you have experienced something" isn't very useful, but I disagree. The confusion lies in the fact that you are looking for advice on something to actively "do" for moral guidance. But there is nothing you can "do" to achieve morality, because morality is right here, right now, right where it's supposed to be. I see it all the time, someone looks at the statement, "You experience what you experience" and is unsatisfied. They think that there should be something to do about morality. Well, you do whatever you want. You can achieve everything you want. But ultimately you'll find that you'll never be as satisfied or as content as when you are simply being in the right here, and right now, and simply being present.

As a side note, it is courteous to do no harm to others, not because of some greater absolute moral law, but because you yourself have allready recognized that avoiding harm is a goal worthy of your pursuing. Likewise, then, there is no reason why avoiding harm would suddenly be inversed for other people. If other people are like yourself, then indeed, they would want to avoid harm to.

To appeal to your reasonable side, then, how could anyone possibly say that it is good to avoid harm, but only apply this to themselves and not to others? Wouldn't that mean that it would be both good to avoid harm, and also not good to avoid harm? By only extending that goodness to yourself, you are making an inherent contradiction. And if you are as devoted to reason as you say you are, I hardly think you could tolerate that.

Finally, You said that I was not contributing to this thread, or that I did not say anything useful. It is, of course, always my attempt to say something useful. But I can only suggest that you take my words, keep the useful, and discard the rest.  

[Ihateusernames]

...
Now, reason helps you distinguish between experiences, and divide experience up. But it can't actually explain experience itself. The second it tries to do that, it fails miserably.

I agree partially with this, that some experiences are unexplainable by reason, however are you saying that explaining experiences like pleasure while on meth can not be done with reason?  What exactly *is* science but explaining experiences utilizing reason. Experience something, use reason to figure out they 'why' behind the experience and boom you got yourself science.  If you are saying the 'why' behind the experience isn't part of the experience so thus you can't explain experiences except through knowing you experienced the experience, then you got me stuck, your right, because you have created a rather stacked deck.  I think explaining the how (dopamine) in meth use could be considered explaining the pleasurable feelings (dopamine), but we could obviously be of different minds on this subject.

There is a lot I could say on the subject. Lot's of clarifications, lot's of things I would like to say to help. But I think that none of that would be particularly helpful right now. It might even do a little bit of harm.

Thanks for the information.  There is a lot I could say to bring about world peace right now... but I'll just leave it ambiguous so I sound like I know a bunch of mystical-ish truths that would help... but then keep them secrets.  Cus you know, it might even do a little bit of harm to the world right now to come to a state of world peace... I think you catch my sarcasm.  :hmm:

As a side note, it is courteous to do no harm to others, not because of some greater absolute moral law, but because you yourself have [already] recognized that avoiding harm is a goal worthy of your pursuing. Likewise, then, there is no reason why avoiding harm would suddenly be inversed for other people. If other people are like yourself, then indeed, they would want to avoid harm to.

You are attributing someone to me that I have never said.  I don't recognize that it is a worthy goal to avoid harm.  If anything, I only recognize it is a worth goal to avoid harming ME. And I wouldn't complain if that was a universal truth (with the ME being static, i.e. everyone should avoid harming Ihateusernames) Heck, If I had to choose between you and me to get infected with AIDS or something, I'd choose you, and I bet you'd do the same with me.  If I could profit off of someone else's pain, experience-ly that works for me.  I have no reason to care about others, and what I have been looking for here was a non-theistic reason to care about others (please no experience vs reason comments on this because although you might not believe it yet I'll say it again, if I was to only go by experience, harming others (at least financially) would have to be considered greatly moral.)

To appeal to your reasonable side, then, how could anyone possibly say that it is good to avoid harm, but only apply this to themselves and not to others? Wouldn't that mean that it would be both good to avoid harm, and also not good to avoid harm? By only extending that goodness to yourself, you are making an inherent contradiction. And if you are as devoted to reason as you say you are, I hardly think you could tolerate that.

You are accidentally(i hope) setting up a false dichotomy here.  I can easily claim that it is 'good' to avoid personal harm and yet still say I want to harm others.  Avoiding 'personal harm', and avoiding 'harm' are completely different things.

Finally, You said that I was not contributing to this thread, or that I did not say anything useful. It is, of course, always my attempt to say something useful. But I can only suggest that you take my words, keep the useful, and discard the rest.  " which most certainly don't have a tone of honest discussion, but one of lecturing or talking down to.

-Ihateusernames

PS: You still haven't responded to my scenarios...

[Renegnicat]

All right, how about this then?

If I'm understanding you correctly, the question you seem to be asking is, "why should I be good?" Is that correct? If not, then you'll need to clarify, but from this point, I'm operating on the assumption that that is the question you want answered. Now, my answer would be that you are approaching the question from the wrong angle.

The question, "why should I be good?": First off, there is no such thing as "good" or "bad" which is inherent in different types of experiences. You can attest to this yourself, as there is no such thing as a "good" action or a "bad" action. If you understand this, then I hope you can see why the question "why should I be good?" is really unanswerable.

This leaves the problem of, what should a person do? Yes? Well, I have an answer, but it probably won't be acceptable to you. It usually isn't to people trapped in dialectical reasoning(no offense intended). The answer is that you should do what is appropriate.

What is appropriate, you ask? Well, this is why we need experience, because reason will never tell us what is appropriate. In order to act appropriately, you need first to know all the aspects of the situation. You need to know the situation, and you need to know yourself. And, finally, you need to know that it is generally the case that all actions produce results that are similiar to the action. Hate breeds hate, love breeds love, etc, etc.

So, knowing all this, what is appropriate? Well, what is appropriate depends on the situation. In the end, only you can decide the appropriateness of your actions, but you should know that to decide the appropriateness of an action, it often helps more if you take into account what you observe, rather than what you believe.

Here's an example, you said that you are in a certain position to profit from many other's misery: IF you believe that you can do whatever you want and you are only responsible for yourself, then you will act accordingly. The question is, are you responsible for only yourself? No. Of course not. What you do doesn't affect only yourself, it affects almost everything you touch. Thus, you are directly responsible not only for the state that you are in, but for the state of all things that you interact with. This should influence your decision about what to do. IF you can observe this, then it factors in. But for christ's sake, don't take my word for it. Observe it for yourself, act upon what you observe, not what I tell you.

I guess, what I'm trying to say is, appropriate action comes from an accurate view of the world and your position in it. Not from a moral system that tries to fit the world into a neat categorical box. Saying that all things are meaningless and you can do whatever you want, well, that's not an accurate view of the world. People deal with meanings every day of their lives. Many meanings are created and used, conceptualized, thought about, negotiated, etc, etc.

Of course, one thing you should realize is that it doesn't matter what beliefs I say you have. I'm not really trying to tell you what beliefs you have or don't have, and the one's I used might or might not apply to you. But that doesn't matter because it's up to you to observe what beliefs you have towards morality, and then see if they are accurate or not. Simply put, the more accurate your beliefs are, the more appropriate your actions will be, should you choose to act on those accurate beliefs. At the same time, it doesn't get much more accurate than unfettered, direct observation. So, take what you will.

Anyway's, that's the answer I have. I don't think you will be very amenable to it, but it's a good thing we're on an atheist forum, because I'm not asking you to believe this for my sake. Look at it for yourself and see if it's true. If it's not, then cast it aside.

That's all I really ask.  

[Sophus]

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.

Right. He did emphasize kindness which, perhaps genuinely, does not come to the sociopath. But not all sociopaths are murders, or even criminals. In fact most are not. And from my understanding they can have an exceptional charm, however superficial. Nietzsche believed you could be kind without pity, so it seems to me they would have less obstacles to overcome than us (in this case).

[AlP]

Right. He did emphasize kindness which, perhaps genuinely, does not come to the sociopath. But not all sociopaths are murders, or even criminals. In fact most are not. And from my understanding they can have an exceptional charm, however superficial. Nietzsche believed you could be kind without pity, so it seems to me they would have less obstacles to overcome than us (in this case).

That's a fair point. It made me think this. I might be easier for a sociopath to be like Nietzsche's overman, or at least some proto-overman, but it is harder for a sociopath to be the overman.

I teach you the overman. Man is something that should be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?

The sociopath has overcome nothing in his sociopathy; to me, the whole point of Nietzsche's overman is his overcoming.

[Sophus]

That's a fair point. It made me think this. I might be easier for a sociopath to be like Nietzsche's overman, or at least some proto-overman, but it is harder for a sociopath to be the overman.

I teach you the overman. Man is something that should be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?

The sociopath has overcome nothing in his sociopathy; to me, the whole point of Nietzsche's overman is his overcoming.

Ah, very true. A sociopath would by no means be born an overman, but could still potentially become one? Their psychological makeup is so different that while they may not have to go through the same lengths we must to "climb higher" they still would not resemble a typical human in their behavior. The physiology of the sociopath was not known during his day.

There's also that great creative element I'm forgetting about. I have no idea if it is easy for sociopaths to develop an artistic side. Most of what they do, even from youth (activities like torturing animals), seems to be to entertain themselves in a rather shallow way.

[AlP]

As I explore these ideas (not just Nietzsche's) I find my life is richer. I find Nietzsche had a rather pessimistic view, though perhaps it was just his hyperbole, that humans would go through some retrograde step to reach what Renegnicat might call enlightenment. I haven't ventured into sociopathic territory nor have I felt that calling. I've changed for sure but not in that way.

I like Nietzsche's "overman" because it is so bold. I like Sartre's similar idea of "authenticity" because it doesn't scare the hell out of people so much.