Originally posted by Astner
My morals are [s]a[/s] more or less what I find to be a convenient simulation of the social-cognitive neuroscientific model with more of an emphasis on empathy.I suppose it's what has kept me alive in the hood for so long, or at the very least that's what I like to think.
I think most people practice popular morality because it makes for a more ordered society. Regardless, those who can live by alternative moral standards due to position, influence, etc often do. America was founded as a bastion of freedom from the oppressive rule of monarchy, yet only decades into its settlement slavery became the norm and the wealthy taxed the poor rather than themselves with neither being seen as immoral and with the practitioners touting their love of God the whole time.
Anyway, going off on a tangent there. I am certainly thankful to science/philosophy and open discussion for the changes that they have made in the moral landscape as a whole despite whatever shortcomings still exist. As best as I can I practice a healthy morality that takes others into consideration because of my study of ethics and adoption of Virtue Ethics. At the end of my life I wish to be able to look back on it and say that it was a life well-lived, that I made sound decisions, and that where possible I left the world a little better than when I came into it.
morality is almost certainly based on genetics. More superfluous things, like wardrobe laws or dietary concerns are probably a reflection of culture (and generally outside of what the OP is talking about anyways), but the more core "moral" issues (theft, rape, murder, etc) are nearly assuredly a product of natural selection.
There is an arms race between social regulation of behaviour and an individual's ability to deceive the group, but studies tend to show people have an innate sense of fairness that transcends being observed by others. A "ring-of-gyges" scenario may produce a person somewhat more inclined to violate others for personal gain, it certainly wouldn't change their individual moral code.
I don't believe there are people who are currently not committing murder, rape, serious interpersonal theft that would suddenly start doing it if they thought they wouldn't be caught. Criminals, almost tautologically, don't think they will be caught, or these crimes are of a nature that the consequences for the action are rarely considered (murder is often a crime of passion).
Originally posted by inimalistHave you read the book The Sociopath Nextdoor?
morality is almost certainly based on genetics. More superfluous things, like wardrobe laws or dietary concerns are probably a reflection of culture (and generally outside of what the OP is talking about anyways), but the more core "moral" issues (theft, rape, murder, etc) are nearly assuredly a product of natural selection.There is an arms race between social regulation of behaviour and an individual's ability to deceive the group, but studies tend to show people have an innate sense of fairness that transcends being observed by others. A "ring-of-gyges" scenario may produce a person somewhat more inclined to violate others for personal gain, it certainly wouldn't change their individual moral code.
I don't believe there are people who are currently not committing murder, rape, serious interpersonal theft that would suddenly start doing it if they thought they wouldn't be caught. Criminals, almost tautologically, don't think they will be caught, or these crimes are of a nature that the consequences for the action are rarely considered (murder is often a crime of passion).
They basically argue that some non-violent sociopaths specifically don't do actions because they are afraid of being caught, however, without the limitations of laws they would act on their impulses.
It's a pretty good book.
Not exactly sure on it's accuracy, though. The study of sociopathy is pretty abstract anyway, since no one truly understands it.
Btw, I will murder and rape you in that order.
Originally posted by Mindset
Have you read the book The Sociopath Nextdoor?They basically argue that some non-violent sociopaths specifically don't do actions because they are afraid of being caught, however, without the limitations of laws they would act on their impulses.
It's a pretty good book.
Not exactly sure on it's accuracy, though. The study of sociopathy is pretty abstract anyway, since no one truly understands it.
sure, but in this case, we are talking about abnormal individuals (abnormal in the clinical psych way, as in, "something wrong" with their brain).
Like, intelligence is at least partially genetic, but there are people who are born with abnormal neurology that prevents them from becoming intelligent. Similar things could be said about language, movement, etc.
Additionally, though I'm not sure if sociopathy is more genetic or developmental, I'd be astounded if genes didn't play some role in the moral behaviour of sociopaths.
To be fair, I'm not actually suggesting that our genetics make us behave in morally "good" ways, just that our morality is based on our evolution. We are only as moral as we needed to be to pass on our genes, and in most cases, this produces pro-social behaviour, altruism, etc. It also produces selfishness and deception, and given sociopaths weren't weeded out by natural selection, there is clearly some (though not a great) advantage to that type of amoral behaviour.
I haven't read the book, but I'd suggest its not so much laws, but basic group expectations of behaviour. And in many ways, we all have these types of constraints. The reason I don't roll a fatty at my desk is because I'd be fired, not because I think there is anything inherently wrong with it.
Originally posted by Mindset
Btw, I will murder and rape you in that order.
if I'm dead I'm not worried too much about the rape... I'd actually be glad someone found a use for my now purposeless flesh.
besides, is it rape if the person is an inanimate object? thats like saying you could rape a statue.
Originally posted by Mindset
Most people want to murder and rape inimalist!?
I'm not surprised, frankly
Originally posted by inimalistWell, sociopathy isn't really understood. There are some people who are born with no conscientious at all, with no ability to differentiate between the concepts of what we consider right and wrong, and there are those that understand them, but feel no need to restrict their actions because of them. They have tested people who they believe show an abnormality that exhibit the signs of sociopathy, but there really isn't a test to determine it, like you would a virus, for example.
sure, but in this case, we are talking about abnormal individuals (abnormal in the clinical psych way, as in, "something wrong" with their brain).Like, intelligence is at least partially genetic, but there are people who are born with abnormal neurology that prevents them from becoming intelligent. Similar things could be said about language, movement, etc.
Additionally, though I'm not sure if sociopathy is more genetic or developmental, I'd be astounded if genes didn't play some role in the moral behaviour of sociopaths.
To be fair, I'm not actually suggesting that our genetics make us behave in morally "good" ways, just that our morality is based on our evolution. We are only as moral as we needed to be to pass on our genes, and in most cases, this produces pro-social behaviour, altruism, etc. It also produces selfishness and deception, and given sociopaths weren't weeded out by natural selection, there is clearly some (though not a great) advantage to that type of amoral behaviour.
I haven't read the book, but I'd suggest its not so much laws, but basic group expectations of behaviour. And in many ways, we all have these types of constraints. The reason I don't roll a fatty at my desk is because I'd be fired, not because I think there is anything inherently wrong with it.
if I'm dead I'm not worried too much about the rape... I'd actually be glad someone found a use for my now purposeless flesh.
besides, is it rape if the person is an inanimate object? thats like saying you could rape a statue.
I'm not surprised, frankly
Again, they don't know. There have been some cases where very young children with no cases of abuse or neglect show the symptoms of sociopathy, and there are those who have been mistrusted and end up being sociopaths. Like with most things, it's probably a combination of nature and nurture.
Yes, if the general populous did not have some kind of moral coherency we couldn't function, however, the case was made in the book that a sociopath would be able to manipulate those around them to attain their own goals. For the few I'd say that makes them the mental "apex predator". Which I think is what you're getting at.
It just gives a general idea of how a sociopath would approach situations. Both laws and socially held moral beliefs. For instance, a non-violent sociopath has no problem with intentionally bankrupting people living them homeless, or giving cancer patients water instead of chemo if they don't think they would be caught. These are both morally and legally wrong.
It sounds like you want me to rape you first. I'll oblige.