
Morality, Compassion and the Sociopath - ulf
http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/21/morality-compassion-and-the-sociopath/
======
mynameishere
I think it's sweet that he managed to include a Nietzsche title without
(apparently) realizing that he's describing the ubermensch.

~~~
vgr
Yes, the series is inspired by Nietzsche's concepts to a large extent. Did not
belabor the connection in the series since it would lose half the readers.

There are subtle differences between what I am describing and the ubermensch
concept though. My categories, I'd say, are closer to being varieties of "men
without backs"/last men (see Fukuyama's "End of History"... and no I am not a
neocon :))

Venkat

------
dunstad
I don't think he should've used the word sociopath. It already has a popularly
accepted definition, and the concept that he's trying to represent doesn't fit
well with it. If you want to read about real sociopaths, go somewhere else.

~~~
roryokane
What word do you think he should have used instead?

~~~
dunstad
He could have made one up, or portmanteau-ed something. That's what language
is supposed to do when it fails to describe a concept.

------
msluyter
My first impression is that the author is on treacherous philosophical ground.
He seems distrustful of "group morality" (incidentally, I would argue that
morality is inherently a function of groups) yet claims more sociopaths is a
"good" thing. But in what sense does he mean "good"? As defined by the group
morality he finds questionable elsewhere?

This sort of argument leads to a sort of self contradiction similar to
"everything is relative" (in what frame do you evaluate "everything is
relative"? Surely not a global, objective one.) If, more charitably, we assume
it's not morality, per se, that he questions so much as a sheeplike adherence
to it, that's fine, but it's also a bit of a false dichotomy (you're either
slavish and unthinking, or a sociopath).

Further, the notion that sociopaths "take responsibility" for their subjective
morality seems dubious. It seems just as likely to me that the moral thought
of this group is mostly limited to post hoc rationalization.

~~~
gloob
_My first impression is that the author is on treacherous philosophical
ground. He seems distrustful of "group morality" (incidentally, I would argue
that morality is inherently a function of groups) yet claims more sociopaths
is a "good" thing. But in what sense does he mean "good"? As defined by the
group morality he finds questionable elsewhere?_

I'm unfamiliar with the author, but one possible way of resolving the apparent
contradiction would be to distinguish between "good vs. evil" and "good vs.
bad" - a solution originally, as far as I know, proposed by Nietzsche, where
"good vs. evil" is a matter of group, "slave" morality, while "good vs. bad"
is a matter of "master" morality. It actually maps quite cleanly to what the
author is talking about, though I'm uncertain whether or not that is
deliberate.

Edit: Also, statements like

 _(you're either slavish and unthinking, or a sociopath)_

feel a bit like misreading the author to me; he's abusing the word
"sociopath", which can be criticized, but here you appear to be using it in a
non-value-neutral manner, which rather misses the point of the article.

------
danbmil99
he's taking the terminology from this cartoon:

<http://gapingvoid.com/2004/06/27/company-hierarchy/>

so his choice of labels has a touch of irony and is a bit harsh. Basically,
he's saying you can use more euphemistic labels -- self-actualizing; process-
oriented; outward-focused/idealist, etc. -- but his labels represent the
unvarnished truth, with a touch of bitchiness.

~~~
Mz
But there is research that indicates that people at the top in business
organizations do rather frequently have some of the traits of sociopaths.
Cartoons frequently use somewhat exaggerated language that would be deemed
"inflammatory" in any other context, so I'm cool with that.

And thank you for the reference. That helps explain some of the article.

------
Mz
Unfortunately, I am not going to be able to read this whole thing right now.
Some parts of it are looking rather good. I kind of wish he weren't using
"losers" as one of his classifications, but perhaps if I knew more of the
background, that would make more sense to me. We have to have words to sum up
concepts and a lot of the meaning depends on how those words are used (kind of
like some conversation I recall from elsewhere where someone asked "Is
'special' the new 'retard'?"). But, so far, I especially like this point:

 _So yes, this entire edifice I am constructing is a determinedly amoral one.
Hitler would count as a sociopath in this sense, but so would Gandhi and
Martin Luther King._

~~~
RevRal
Along the same lines, I like:

 _Whether good or evil, the morality of a sociopath is something he or she
takes responsibility for._

Then later:

 _More people taking individual moral responsibility is a good thing._

~~~
Daishiman
Sociopaths do not assume responsibility for anything they do. They absolve
themselves of the consequences because one of the definitions of a sociopath
is that he has no regard or compassion for other beings.

To a sociopath there is no other justice other than whichever favors him the
most. The blogger in question has evidently read little to no literature on
the subject.

It is interesting to note that over a fourth of all convicts display
sociopathic characteristics, among them a complete lack of remorse for their
actions.

~~~
gaius
You have to read the first article in the series to get his definitions,
sociopath, loser and clueless have specific meanings in this context.

I agree that player, pawn and spectator would have been better.

------
lvecsey
tldr; herd mentality will ebb and flow, but there will always be some sheep on
the edges with their own moral compass. some good, some bad. but the herd
perceives them all the same.

