Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most people seem to think ethics are important. But are they? What is so bad about being a sociopath if you aren't harming others health or property?
The concept of ethic is basically that there are a certain number of life rules that you subscribe to under the pretext that they will make you a better person. Basically ethic is like a personal religion that an individual or a group buys into for the greater good. But like religion, the concept of ethic doesn't make sense...
I think the concept of the ethic was invented for 2 main reasons:
-To give the rulers of society or a group a easy way to regulate the behaviour of their people without having to do too much complex explaining which their people might not even understand (take religion for example) to defend what they believe to be the greater good.
-To give people mental shortcuts when deciding what to do in different situations so they don't have to think too hard.
While I admit that these reasons kind of made sense in the past where most people did not even know how to read and thus could not be expected to understand complex concepts that their rulers were more likely to understand, I feel that in a modern educated society where people have easy access to huge amounts of information ethic as a concept is no longer useful. These are what I feel are the biggest problems with the concept of ethic:
-It isn't future proof. Ethic that makes sense at one point might not also do so later if society changes for some reason thus making the old ethic out of date.
-Because people use ethic as a mental shortcut when deciding what to do they may end up taking decisions that are actually harmful because the decision maker subscribes to ethic rather than reason (like not killing a murderer with a gun who's about to kill others because killing is wrong).
So I can't help but ask, why is it better to have ethic instead of being a rational sociopath? What would make society worse if everybody used only pure reason and just dumped the concept of ethic? When I ask a question like that many people are quick to claim that some evil things like murder, rape, child porn and other similar disgusting things can only prevented if people have ethic. I disagree, because there are 2 problems with this argument:
-It assumes that no purely rational reasons can be given for not doing those things that prevent people from doing them even if they have no ethic.
-That if a sociopath does something bad then this can be blamed on the fact the person was a sociopath, and not because of other factors like stupidity, short-sightedness, lack if impulse control etc.
I disagree with both of those arguments.
I will create a simple example. Let's say that I have zero ethic and that the only thing that matters to me is my own self-preservation and possibly the preservation of my familiy if I have one. Now let's look at a number of common laws and social-norms that exist in most countries:
-You can't kill.
-You can't rape.
-You can't have sex with children or own child porn.
-The disabled and the unhealthy are given treatment and/or help of some kind.
Now let's ask ourselves, as a person who has no ethic would I still support these kind of laws? Yes, yes I would. For a simple reason: self-preservation.
Even if I did not care about anyone but myself, I would still be able to justify the existence of those things. I would not want anybody to rape or kill me so I would have a good reason for wanting that to be banned. I would not want my children harmed so I would have no reason to support child porn or sex with minors. And unless I were very short-sighted, I would still support some kind of universial welfare/healthcare so that I won't be screwed if something happens to me. I don't need ethic to come to any of these conclusions.
You may ask, "but why would a person with no ethic actually care about their children or loved ones?". This question assumes that not having ethic is the same as not having feelings. This isn't true. I can still love my mother even if there is no ethical rule that expects me to do so. I disagree that being a sociopath is the same as being a robot with no emotions.
So yea, what exactly is the point of having any ethic in the modern world? If any?
Ethics are a constant reformulation of ideas for behavuor that help to create relationships between human beings. People with similar ethics tend to congregate with each other and within these groups they may create explicit or implicit rules to guide their behavior based upon the shared ethics.
Ethics are a constant reformulation of ideas for behavuor that help to create relationships between human beings. People with similar ethics tend to congregate with each other and within these groups they may create explicit or implicit rules to guide their behavior based upon the shared ethics.
Why can't people just work together because of common or mutural interests instead of shared ethics? That is how the free market works for example. People don't go to work because of ethic, and the companies don't pay wages because of ethics. They do it because of mutural interest. The company and the workers both make money.
It appears that each human has a personal ethic or value system. While no two people or group of people may have a 100% shared value system, they often congregate because they share much in a common value system.
As far as I can discern, there is no such thing as a free market system. Humans are constantly interceding in any human endeavor and they bring with them their own personal value system into these endeavors.
Most people seem to think ethics are important. But are they? What is so bad about being a sociopath if you aren't harming others health or property?
*I have heard that whether or not someone is a sociopath is determined based off their actions. I'm not sure what the exact qualifications are, but I've heard that we haven't bothered to develop any other qualifications for being a sociopath than actions. I think it's generally thought, or maybe merely assumed, that sociopaths cannot, will not, or frequently do not empathize with others.
*I'm pretty sure not harming others or property can be part of a code of ethics, or an entire code of ethics.
Quote:
The concept of ethic is basically that there are a certain number of life rules that you subscribe to under the pretext that they will make you a better person. Basically ethic is like a personal religion that an individual or a group buys into for the greater good. But like religion, the concept of ethic doesn't make sense...
I disagree with the concept of ethics not making sense...although we may have a disagreement about what ethics are. Rules for behaviors that allow large groups to function together more efficiently (such as laws banning stabbings) allow everyone in the group to live in a more relaxed environment. Not only will we not get stabbed, we don't have to spend so much mental energy worrying about not being stabbed. We don't have to necessarily become skilled knife fighters to fend off would-be stabbers. We can afford to spend out time on other activities.
Quote:
I think the concept of the ethic was invented for 2 main reasons:
-To give the rulers of society or a group a easy way to regulate the behaviour of their people without having to do too much complex explaining which their people might not even understand (take religion for example) to defend what they believe to be the greater good.
-To give people mental shortcuts when deciding what to do in different situations so they don't have to think too hard.
While I admit that these reasons kind of made sense in the past where most people did not even know how to read and thus could not be expected to understand complex concepts that their rulers were more likely to understand, I feel that in a modern educated society where people have easy access to huge amounts of information ethic as a concept is no longer useful. These are what I feel are the biggest problems with the concept of ethic:
-It isn't future proof. Ethic that makes sense at one point might not also do so later if society changes for some reason thus making the old ethic out of date.
-Because people use ethic as a mental shortcut when deciding what to do they may end up taking decisions that are actually harmful because the decision maker subscribes to ethic rather than reason (like not killing a murderer with a gun who's about to kill others because killing is wrong).
I would say that you are correct in that your example (in bold) would be a harmful repercussion of total pacifism. However, I would say that the total pacifism you depicted is not harmful because it is a code of ethics, but rather because it is a code of ethics that should have been thought out more by the holder of the code.
I agree with much of your post in that codes of ethics can be mental shortcuts that keep people from thinking too hard. I agree that they can be a useful tool of leaders.
What you seem to describe as ethics I would describe as simply taking on a moral code from ourselves or other sources and refusing to modify it. That's problematic because it's not adaptable...and it's worse the moral code were based on un-thought out perspectives of right and wrong because it could be even more harmful. For example, some rules from ancient sources might have been beneficial to people living centuries ago, but obsolete in modern times.
Quote:
So I can't help but ask, why is it better to have ethic instead of being a rational sociopath? What would make society worse if everybody used only pure reason and just dumped the concept of ethic? When I ask a question like that many people are quick to claim that some evil things like murder, rape, child porn and other similar disgusting things can only prevented if people have ethic. I disagree, because there are 2 problems with this argument:
I don't know what the exact definition of a sociopath according to our psychologists...but generally I believe they're thought to be people who don't show attention to empathy for others. I suppose whether it'd be better to have a sociopath or someone who has an unchanging code of ethics that wasn't thought out well depends on the sociopath and the environment in question. The ideal environment for sociopaths would probably be one in which they can gain much for themselves by supporting the community, and cause themselves harm by harming the community.
I've thought about this type of thing before too. I've split morality into two variants: self-constructed morality and mimicked morality. Self-constructed morality is morality that stems from you. Mimicked morality is morality merely copied from other sources without much thought about why you have it. I think the self-constructed morality has many advantages over mimicked morality. It's more adaptable, being the major advantage. Mimicked morality can be faster, and more useful than self-constructed morality if the provider of the morality is wiser than you, but I don't believe it's very difficult for most people to think about sensible reasons for behavior and gain all their morality through self-constructed morality...and that would be ideal, I think, although perhaps some people are better off just doing whatever their elders say until they've had time to think about why they do things. It's easy to think about why we should do just about any activity we can think of. The only hard part is getting people to actually do it, I think.
The ethical system you are denouncing seems to be part of what I'd call self-constructed morality and part of what I'd call mimicked morality. It's just mimicked or self-constructed morality that wasn't thought about much that you seem to have a problem with, and I agree. More thinking about why we do things will probably result in, if not better behavior, at least a better moral code.
Quote:
-It assumes that no purely rational reasons can be given for not doing those things that prevent people from doing them even if they have no ethic.
-That if a sociopath does something bad then this can be blamed on the fact the person was a sociopath, and not because of other factors like stupidity, short-sightedness, lack if impulse control etc.
I disagree with both of those arguments.
I will create a simple example. Let's say that I have zero ethic and that the only thing that matters to me is my own self-preservation and possibly the preservation of my familiy if I have one. Now let's look at a number of common laws and social-norms that exist in most countries:
I'd say that it'd be very difficult to have zero ethics. Even the sociopath who is only out for herself or hisself is still helping someone: him. The sociopath could very well have a moral code designed to assist at least some life. I'd call that ethics, personally. The idea that assisting other members of a group is good is one type of ethics...but you know what? I know at least person on Citi-Data who believed the purpose of life was to help life to improve and continue. I could see someone having an ethical code in which the goal is not to help the most, but to build a robotic god even if the creator's life is made harder and shorter through that creation, to help life continue on.
Quote:
-You can't kill.
-You can't rape.
-You can't have sex with children or own child porn.
-The disabled and the unhealthy are given treatment and/or help of some kind.
Now let's ask ourselves, as a person who has no ethic would I still support these kind of laws? Yes, yes I would. For a simple reason: self-preservation.
Even if I did not care about anyone but myself, I would still be able to justify the existence of those things. I would not want anybody to rape or kill me so I would have a good reason for wanting that to be banned. I would not want my children harmed so I would have no reason to support child porn or sex with minors. And unless I were very short-sighted, I would still support some kind of universial welfare/healthcare so that I won't be screwed if something happens to me. I don't need ethic to come to any of these conclusions.
So...we're pretending you're a sociopath. As a sociopath you are certainly capable of logically thinking: I don't want other people hurt because they feel and so do I. Their pain isn't so different from mine." That's makes perfect sense to me, even if you lack the capacity to feel someone's else's suffering yourself. Now...the part that might cause problems for the majority is what type of personal philosophy the sociopath in question has, because he or she could also sensibly look at it like other people are not his self or herself...so he or she can steal all he or she wants from others, because they're not him. I think either philosophy could be described as logical.
Quote:
You may ask, "but why would a person with no ethic actually care about their children or loved ones?". This question assumes that not having ethic is the same as not having feelings. This isn't true. I can still love my mother even if there is no ethical rule that expects me to do so. I disagree that being a sociopath is the same as being a robot with no emotions.
So yea, what exactly is the point of having any ethic in the modern world? If any?
If a sociopath cares about the feelings of others...from what I understand they're not a sociopath. I've read the comments of someone worrying about being a sociopath who had been told "If you worry about being a sociopath, you're not a sociopath because you care about others." I think you're correct in that they're not robots...but I also believe they don't feel empathy, or can shut it off and do routinely, or feel considerably less of it than most...or something to do with feeling less empathy. So they're not so much robots as self-centered people. Sometimes they're very emotional people.
Why can't people just work together because of common or mutural interests instead of shared ethics? That is how the free market works for example. People don't go to work because of ethic, and the companies don't pay wages because of ethics. They do it because of mutural interest. The company and the workers both make money.
because our brains have a huge chuck of the animal brain that preceded it in there. The one that says grab what you can now because you might go without for a few days. we are not in the environment now, but some brains think they are.
it's not an all or nothing question despite what some philosophers teach. "ethics" are not "useless" for many reasons. But for the most part taking them "literal" or making them "inflexible" is not healthy either.
It's "do not murder".
Not "do not kill".
You can kill in justified self defense. It's not a sin. Taking no action to protect your physical abode from harm is actually a sin against your physical body.
*I have heard that whether or not someone is a sociopath is determined based off their actions. I'm not sure what the exact qualifications are, but I've heard that we haven't bothered to develop any other qualifications for being a sociopath than actions. I think it's generally thought, or maybe merely assumed, that sociopaths cannot, will not, or frequently do not empathize with others.
*I'm pretty sure not harming others or property can be part of a code of ethics, or an entire code of ethics.
I disagree with the concept of ethics not making sense...although we may have a disagreement about what ethics are. Rules for behaviors that allow large groups to function together more efficiently (such as laws banning stabbings) allow everyone in the group to live in a more relaxed environment. Not only will we not get stabbed, we don't have to spend so much mental energy worrying about not being stabbed. We don't have to necessarily become skilled knife fighters to fend off would-be stabbers. We can afford to spend out time on other activities.
I would say that you are correct in that your example (in bold) would be a harmful repercussion of total pacifism. However, I would say that the total pacifism you depicted is not harmful because it is a code of ethics, but rather because it is a code of ethics that should have been thought out more by the holder of the code.
I agree with much of your post in that codes of ethics can be mental shortcuts that keep people from thinking too hard. I agree that they can be a useful tool of leaders.
What you seem to describe as ethics I would describe as simply taking on a moral code from ourselves or other sources and refusing to modify it. That's problematic because it's not adaptable...and it's worse the moral code were based on un-thought out perspectives of right and wrong because it could be even more harmful. For example, some rules from ancient sources might have been beneficial to people living centuries ago, but obsolete in modern times.
I don't know what the exact definition of a sociopath according to our psychologists...but generally I believe they're thought to be people who don't show attention to empathy for others. I suppose whether it'd be better to have a sociopath or someone who has an unchanging code of ethics that wasn't thought out well depends on the sociopath and the environment in question. The ideal environment for sociopaths would probably be one in which they can gain much for themselves by supporting the community, and cause themselves harm by harming the community.
I've thought about this type of thing before too. I've split morality into two variants: self-constructed morality and mimicked morality. Self-constructed morality is morality that stems from you. Mimicked morality is morality merely copied from other sources without much thought about why you have it. I think the self-constructed morality has many advantages over mimicked morality. It's more adaptable, being the major advantage. Mimicked morality can be faster, and more useful than self-constructed morality if the provider of the morality is wiser than you, but I don't believe it's very difficult for most people to think about sensible reasons for behavior and gain all their morality through self-constructed morality...and that would be ideal, I think, although perhaps some people are better off just doing whatever their elders say until they've had time to think about why they do things. It's easy to think about why we should do just about any activity we can think of. The only hard part is getting people to actually do it, I think.
The ethical system you are denouncing seems to be part of what I'd call self-constructed morality and part of what I'd call mimicked morality. It's just mimicked or self-constructed morality that wasn't thought about much that you seem to have a problem with, and I agree. More thinking about why we do things will probably result in, if not better behavior, at least a better moral code.
I'd say that it'd be very difficult to have zero ethics. Even the sociopath who is only out for herself or hisself is still helping someone: him. The sociopath could very well have a moral code designed to assist at least some life. I'd call that ethics, personally. The idea that assisting other members of a group is good is one type of ethics...but you know what? I know at least person on Citi-Data who believed the purpose of life was to help life to improve and continue. I could see someone having an ethical code in which the goal is not to help the most, but to build a robotic god even if the creator's life is made harder and shorter through that creation, to help life continue on.
So...we're pretending you're a sociopath. As a sociopath you are certainly capable of logically thinking: I don't want other people hurt because they feel and so do I. Their pain isn't so different from mine." That's makes perfect sense to me, even if you lack the capacity to feel someone's else's suffering yourself. Now...the part that might cause problems for the majority is what type of personal philosophy the sociopath in question has, because he or she could also sensibly look at it like other people are not his self or herself...so he or she can steal all he or she wants from others, because they're not him. I think either philosophy could be described as logical.
If a sociopath cares about the feelings of others...from what I understand they're not a sociopath. I've read the comments of someone worrying about being a sociopath who had been told "If you worry about being a sociopath, you're not a sociopath because you care about others." I think you're correct in that they're not robots...but I also believe they don't feel empathy, or can shut it off and do routinely, or feel considerably less of it than most...or something to do with feeling less empathy. So they're not so much robots as self-centered people. Sometimes they're very emotional people.
You also have sociopathic tendencies- which I tend to have. Those I feel.close to me is all I care about, or possibly some one in which a common interest is shared.
It's "do not murder".
Not "do not kill".
You can kill in justified self defense. It's not a sin. Taking no action to protect your physical abode from harm is actually a sin against your physical body.
I don't see a difference, taking a life is taking a life, death is death, reasons behind it, doesn't matter, it's still taking a life.
People having a lack of ethics are not the same as sociopaths and pathological narcissists. The first can exist without overwhelming damage to society because they are capable of loving others, but the latter two are a societal nightmare--they ALWAYS hurt others. It is part of the pathology that the only thing sociopaths and pathological narcissists enjoy is getting power over others, and using that power to HURT them (and when I say enjoy, I mean they live for it). The more they hurt their victims, the more ecstastic they are.
It is truly sad that our society worships "self confidence" so much that we elevate those with unshakeable self confidence to positions of power in business and government--not realizing that the only people with unshakeable self confidence are pathological narcissists that will not stop until they have robbed the company/nation blind, and ruined the business/country and all the people in it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
