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.
If morality is relative, and that kindness/humanity are thus not objectively good, then why does being a sociopath matter?
Morality may in actuality be relative, but our culture deems it subjective. Therefore, it matters to our culture.
Quote:
Why has this term entered pop culture all of a sudden?
Why does any term enter pop culture? Because one person latches onto it, it goes out to friends and friends of friends until the tidal wave is complete. The usual problem is that, like playing the game "Telephone", the word becomes altered over time.
Morality may in actuality be relative, but our culture deems it subjective. Therefore, it matters to our culture.
If there are no objective moral wrongs, then being a sociopath shouldn't matter. The sociopath is acting according to what is normal for him/her.
Quote:
Why does any term enter pop culture? Because one person latches onto it, it goes out to friends and friends of friends until the tidal wave is complete. The usual problem is that, like playing the game "Telephone", the word becomes altered over time.
That wasn't my point. it's simply a term people use to sound trendy and hip. People would be more content in life if they accepted others as they are, not condemn abusive people as "sociopaths".
If there are no objective moral wrongs, then being a sociopath shouldn't matter. The sociopath is acting according to what is normal for him/her.
You're proceeding from a personal opinion - a subjective one - that there are no objective moral wrongs. My personal opinion is an objective one, because I have felt, tasted, heard and seen moral wrong.
Which of us is "right"?
Quote:
That wasn't my point. it's simply a term people use to sound trendy and hip. People would be more content in life if they accepted others as they are, not condemn abusive people as "sociopaths".
"Accepting others as they are" is also a trendy phrase, especially in these parts. It's hard to swing a cat without encountering a trendy phrase.
Of course people would be more content ... or would they? Who says the ultimate human being is one that is only content? You need both contentment and discontent to be balanced.
Accepting others as they are - good for wise men and recluses; for the rest of us, a bit problematic at times.
You're proceeding from a personal opinion - a subjective one - that there are no objective moral wrongs. My personal opinion is an objective one, because I have felt, tasted, heard and seen moral wrong.
Which of us is "right"?
I don't care about rightness. most in the world don't accept moral absolutism.
Quote:
"Accepting others as they are" is also a trendy phrase, especially in these parts. It's hard to swing a cat without encountering a trendy phrase.
Of course people would be more content ... or would they? Who says the ultimate human being is one that is only content? You need both contentment and discontent to be balanced.
Accepting others as they are - good for wise men and recluses; for the rest of us, a bit problematic at times.
It's a basic aspect of the human condition. What else can it be?
The OP is describing a pathological liar, not necessarily a sociopath. Sociopaths are typically extremely smart, charming and can fool many people through charm (not merely lies).
Bill Clinton is an example of a very adroit sociopath (I love Clinton, but gotta call a spade a spade here).
Your ex sounds like a very damaged pathological liar, not necessarily a sociopath.
I don't care about rightness. most in the world don't accept moral absolutism.
And your supporting literature is ... ?
Quote:
It's a basic aspect of the human condition. What else can it be?
How do you derive that? Especially from a phrase so ethereal as "the human condition" - are you using a Transhumanist interpretation or a neo-Luddite one?
Sociopath is not a moral label (the way evil, good, noble, etc. are) but a behavioral and psychological label, although it is a bit dated.
As for OP, I'm not seeing this guy as a sociopath, just someone who isn't a good match for you. If you don't want a bf who wears lingerie, fine, understandable, but that does not make him a sociopath. It means he is incompatible with you and into something you are not.
The works of countless contemporary anthropologists, ethicists, etc. modern Western belief is that there are no moral absolutes.
Quote:
How do you derive that? Especially from a phrase so ethereal as "the human condition" - are you using a Transhumanist interpretation or a neo-Luddite one?
There are given states of being human. besides, on what basis does a person act? is it for their own benefit or for those of others?
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.
