Happy Atheist Forum

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?

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.

Quote from: "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.

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)

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"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.

Quote from: "Will"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

QuoteIMO 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.

Quote from: "Tanker"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

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.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"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.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"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.

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

QuoteCertainly 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 (http://ia311535.us.archive.org/0/items/completenietasch10nietuoft/completenietasch10nietuoft_bw.pdf).

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.

Quote from: "Will"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).

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"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 :P  :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.

Quote from: "Tanker"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:  

Quote from: "zandurian"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!

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?  

Quote from: "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[/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.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"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.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"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.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"

Quote from: "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?  

Quote from: "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! : )

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"

Quote from: "Renegnicat"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.

Quote from: "Will"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?

Quote from: "Will"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:

Quote from: "Will"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.

Quote from: "Will"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! :rant:[/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.

Quote from: "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.  

-Ihateusernames

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"

Quote from: "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  :D

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"

Quote from: "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?

Quote from: "Renegnicat"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.

Quote from: "Renegnicat"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

...
...
...

Quotehow 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.  

Quote from: "Renegnicat"...
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.

Quote from: "Renegnicat"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:

Quote from: "Renegnicat"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.)

Quote from: "Renegnicat"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.

Quote from: "Renegnicat"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.  :rant:" 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...

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.  

Quote from: "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...

QuoteCertainly 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 (http://ia311535.us.archive.org/0/items/completenietasch10nietuoft/completenietasch10nietuoft_bw.pdf).

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).

Quote from: "Sophus"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.

Quote from: "Nietzsche"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.

Quote from: "AlP"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.

Quote from: "Nietzsche"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.

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.

In order to answer this question you first have to have the basic understanding of what a sociopath is as opposed to a psychopath.  Often in the general public those two terms are interchangable but they have vast differences and vastly different implications.  I've written an extensive thesis on this topic so I thought I would give this question a go.

Sociopath is generally made into such a person.  Let me clarify.  Individuals such as Jerry Brudos or Eddie Gein are born into families that are abusive, neglectful, criminal and those children are made to suffer for it by both physical and mental abuse sometimes with sexual.  It is common for a wife beater to pass that behavior onto his son, simply because the boy growing up sees this from an adult that he naturally learns from, and his brain grows (literally, the neurons and paths are created) to accept this as "right" behavior.  Changing that belief system involves changing literally how his brain works.  It cannot be done.  Once those pathways are created that is where those electronic messages get sent that influence the behavior.  Add this component to the above mentioned serial sociopathic murderers of the past, in which their early environment literally shaped how their brain formed to find that certain activities were "right", "normal" or "acceptable".  Where later they develop into criminal behavior, that oft times leads to murder.

Psychopathy however is different.  This is where, for some unknown reason, possibly genetic, one is born "bad".  That famous "bad seed".  Little Mary Bell, the picture of a cute little 10 year old blonde girl who killed two little boys (just imagine the picture, in fact I would label her a sociopath since her mother was a prostitute who on several occasions tried to give Mary and her absent father was a criminal).  They are the ones in which no bad childhood was displayed, their family was good/moral (considering the scrutiny of looking at anyone's family/childhood) and no one can conceive how they "learned" their behavior.  This is still an ongoing research effort into why or how one is born with a conscience, or an inate ability to be compassionate towards others hardships.

As to the question.  I would say on the issue of a sociopath, no it is not necessarily easier for them considering their past, that most if not all of their behavior is learned from the irresponsible adults around them.  Minus the medical mumbo-jumbo, it is least to say that they cannot help their mental status, a lack of feeling empathy towards other in which makes it "easier" for them to harm others.  That is not to say that they have any excuse for their actions, but they do for their mental processes.

As for psychopaths, it depends on what you mean by easier.  Most people will say that the greatest thing about life is the ability to feel for other people.  The love towards your spouse, being proud of a child accomplishment, devotion towards your parents etc.  Human beings are social creatures in which we are bond to one another, the approval of our "pack", wanting to help others succeed (so that we all succeed).  They feel none of that.  They truly have no love for others, they do not feel sadness for others, hope for others, they cannot miss other people simply as markers in their lives, they cannot express their own hope, fears, dreams to friends because they have none other than how to get themselves on top.  When one person say that they want to be a doctor it is because they want to help people or fix their injuries.  For them they want that job for the power, for controlling another.  When someone says they want to join the military, it is for standing up for their country and their values to help those back home.  When they join it is because they want to have the power of life and to harm others. To me, that is a sad lonely terrible existence, void of anything that we value as human beings, as pack animals, as social creatures.

Quote from: "LovingLife"In order to answer this question you first have to have the basic understanding of what a sociopath is as opposed to a psychopath.  Often in the general public those two terms are interchangable but they have vast differences and vastly different implications.  I've written an extensive thesis on this topic so I thought I would give this question a go.....

What a great response. Thank you for your input. I had thought that the original coined term was psychopath but was simply changed to sociopath for whatever reason. Looks like the concept alltogether is evolving.

Even though they come about differently they still act in pretty much the same way, or no?

They're not incapable of feeling joy are they? Not just pleasure but a deep joy.