• 💖 [Donate To Keep MyPTSD Online] 💖 Every contribution, no matter how small, fuels our mission and helps us continue to provide peer-to-peer services. Your generosity keeps us independent and available freely to the world. MyPTSD closes if we can't reach our annual goal.

Are We Just Moral Sociopaths?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Although I disagree a lot with Ayn Rand, I agree that Good Selfishness is good and is ultimately the basis for our morals and ethics.

The most empathetic person can be described as doing good just to feel good. Of course -even here - such person has a certain motivation because of his selfish genes.

To me, if a person can empathize with and genuinely understand the suffering of other persons, his motivations to do good would already be "Pure" altruism.

Now here is my problem: what separates a person who uses this logic from "Good" Sociopaths? I agree that it is useful to separate "Bad, Evil" sociopaths from the rest of normal society.
But is there a useful separation of "Selfish-but-moral" persons from "Good" Sociopaths? Or do they just mean the same thing?
 
SinceAChildPTSD - I believe "Good sociopath" is an oxymoron. Generally speaking, a true sociopath generally does not have the ability to empathize with others. There's nothing wrong with catching a buzz as a result of supporting and aiding others. In fact, every spiritual philosophy in the world pretty-much operates under the assumption service to others and the world is the most noble act one can perform in this life. Twelve Step programs encourage it as a means to move past emotional pain and avoid relapse.
 
Anything Ayn Rand would have written would have been written from her own experience and the facade she presented to many, remember this is a person who denounced the idea of people being supported by government assistance, even though some would need it. And then in later life took all the assistance she could get. Nothing good can come from a twisted and manipulative mind like hers. You only had to watch the fanciful Atlas shrugged to see she was a complete Nut Job
 
Although I disagree a lot with Ayn Rand, I agree that Good Selfishness is good and is ultimately the basis for our morals and ethics.

The most empathetic person can be described as doing good just to feel good...
But is there a useful separation of "Selfish-but-moral" persons from "Good" Sociopaths? Or do they just mean the same thing?

A great many species have empathy, altruism, reciprocity, and so on. Only we have "morals" and "ethics" and a lot of that is simply BS. I would suggest reading Our Inner Ape by Franz de Waal. In his view, morality is simply defined as do good and do not do harm. Most of what we call "morality" is really opinion and is entirely tied up with one's culture. Case in point: debates about breast feeding in public. It doesn't do anyone harm and does the baby good, so it's moral. But then again a lot of people get all bent out of shape over it.

I disagree that "the most empathetic person can be described as doing good just to feel good." We develop empathy very, very early in life, like between 18 mo. and age 3. It isn't to feel good, although that may be part of it. We do it because it is the social thing to do, it binds people together so that they can cooperate, assist each other in times of trouble. Because it's present in many species, we know its there to promote survival. I don't believe there is such a thing as a selfish gene; that's cultural.

And what on Earth is a good sociopath? The rest of your post seems incoherent if not senseless so I can't respond to it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I had a cobversation with a sociopath about this subject. He said it was rather simple to tell the difference. He gave this example:

If a boy is drowining in water, a person who isn't a sociopath would immediately try to save the boy, if they could.

In the same situation, a person who is a sociopath would immediate ask themselves the question "what do I get out of this?".

The difference between the "good" and "bad" sociopath is the value they place on the outcome; what they get in return for their deed. The higher the value of outcome they want, the more likely they won't act on it as it doesn't fit in with reality and therefore doesn't benefit them.
 
Thank you for your thoughtful replies guys, though it seems like there is still confusion between sociopathy and psychopathy.
 
I think there's confusion too about what empathy is. Empathy is the basis upon which all cooperation rests. Without it, there's no society, no civilization, and very likely we wouldn't be here. I'm no biologist but I'm pretty sure few if any social species wouldn't be here w/o it. Or to put it another way, are there any social species w/o it?

In other words, I don't buy your logical argument because I reject the premises on which it is based.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top