The Only Rule is Don't Get Caught

[Me Myself]

If you think opinions have value then you are a psychopath? Gee, thanks...

being a sociopath has nothing to do with wheter or not you think "opinions" have "values"

I don`t know how you turned what I said into that

What would be sociopathic is NOT feeling ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING about other people`s feelings (which tend to impragnate their opinions but I was still talking about empathy, not intelectual curiosity or validation of opinions )

 

[The Sum of Awe]

being a sociopath has nothing to do with wheter or not you think "opinions" have "values"

I don`t know how you turned what I said into that

What would be sociopathic is NOT feeling ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING about other people`s feelings (which tend to impragnate their opinions but I was still talking about empathy, not intelectual curiosity or validation of opinions )

I disagree. For 1 just because you don't care of other's feelings doesn't make you introverted (which comes from sociopathy)

Another thing is, it's a disorder, but what if it's just from the logical conclusion that their feelings have no relevance to you or your life? What if it's just apathy? If this were true, having absolutely no empathy for another were a disorder, it appears most of the population has it.

 

[Madhuri]

Another thing is, it's a disorder, but what if it's just from the logical conclusion that their feelings have no relevance to you or your life? What if it's just apathy? If this were true, having absolutely no empathy for another were a disorder, it appears most of the population has it.

How do you come to that conclusion?
Just about everyone has the ability to experience empathy. We generally feel empathy for those we care about or relate to.
So for example, a person may not have any empathy for an animal if they believe animals don't have sentience.
And people who are really immature tend to be quite selfish. Sometimes a very serious and somewhat traumatic situation can totally change that, give the person some realisations and make them less selfish and ignorant.

Most people have the capacity for empathy but it takes a little bit of wisdom to trigger it. Until then its very selective.

If you are really worried about your own lack of empathy, go to a slaughter house or someplace where people are being tortured or abused and if you still don't feel anything then maybe get yourself locked up.

 

[Madhuri]

By the way, can you provide some examples of where you have experienced apathy or where you have observed others being apathetic that have made you come to this conclusion?

 

[Debater Slayer]

• Had I been in the place of your mom, I think I would have been concerned too, both because of the possibility that you might hurt yourself and because I know I'd carry immense responsibility on my shoulders if you hurt yourself or anyone else.

Saying that the only thing that prevents you from doing anything is the possibility of being caught seems to imply a lack of an internal deterrent that doesn't rely on fear of being punished. It appears to me from what you told her that you were trying to make that clear to her, which would have definitely worried me if I had been in her place, even though I'd most likely have assumed you were misrepresenting how you would actually act in the case of being safe from "getting caught."

• I think that "good," "bad," "right," and "wrong" are all relative terms that can and mostly do vary from person to person, society to society, and from one religion to another, bar some bare "basics" that appear to be shared among most people regardless of where they are or what they believe, such as "don't murder" and "don't steal," etc.

However, in a situation like the one you described in your OP, I wouldn't really care about the differences in the way we use such labels as long as they don't hint at committing future crimes or hurting other people; I'd care most about the actual consequences of what the use of such labels would entail.

For example, if someone told me that they think murder is a "good" thing, I'd be concerned about the harms that such a view could entail. It would be far more than a simple difference in our worldviews — expressing opinions that don't uphold not causing harm to others can be a good indicator of future misbehavior. I don't think it comes as any real surprise that someone may consider abstract concepts to be very relevant to the actual world when such concepts can and do influence how many people act.

• Having said the above, I think it's worth pointing out that I'm not implying that what you told your mom necessarily means that you'll engage in illegal conduct in the future... since I think that what you said may well be misrepresenting the way you'd act in real situations that lack an external punishment as a consequence of committing a crime(s).

Also, have you considered that your mom's shock and "flipping right out" might have just been out of concern for your own well-being rather than any difference in ethical or philosophical approaches?

 

[Me Myself]

I disagree. For 1 just because you don't care of other's feelings doesn't make you introverted (which comes from sociopathy)

Another thing is, it's a disorder, but what if it's just from the logical conclusion that their feelings have no relevance to you or your life? What if it's just apathy? If this were true, having absolutely no empathy for another were a disorder, it appears most of the population has it.

you are confusing not being consciously aware of your "caring" to not having the caring at all.

A sociopath doesn`t have it at all. Most people do have it, but they supress it on different levels in different situations.

 

[HonestJoe]

What is wrong with that being your only rule, IYO?

So murder, rape and theft are just fine as long as you get away with it? Maybe you Mom should lock you in your room, feed you only bread and water and violate you daily with a metal bar until you develop some common sense. After all, it'd be OK as long as she didn't get caught wouldn't it?

 

[Riverwolf]

I disagree. For 1 just because you don't care of other's feelings doesn't make you introverted (which comes from sociopathy)

Another thing is, it's a disorder, but what if it's just from the logical conclusion that their feelings have no relevance to you or your life? What if it's just apathy? If this were true, having absolutely no empathy for another were a disorder, it appears most of the population has it.

No they don't, actually. We all feel empathic at least towards our immediate families and friends.

It's also something that's independent of logical thought, because it's an instinct. It's part of who we are as a social species.

BTW, I'm introverted but hardly a sociopath. I just have asperger's. ^_^

 

[The Sum of Awe]

So murder, rape and theft are just fine as long as you get away with it? Maybe you Mom should lock you in your room, feed you only bread and water and violate you daily with a metal bar until you develop some common sense. After all, it'd be OK as long as she didn't get caught wouldn't it?

It's ridiculous how moralists attempt to convince someone out of their logic by fear.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

No they don't, actually. We all feel empathic at least towards our immediate families and friends.

Prove this please. I would decline.

It's also something that's independent of logical thought, because it's an instinct. It's part of who we are as a social species.

It's not a strong one if it were. There are many people who completely hate their families and friends.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

• Had I been in the place of your mom, I think I would have been concerned too, both because of the possibility that you might hurt yourself and because I know I'd carry immense responsibility on my shoulders if you hurt yourself or anyone else.

Saying that the only thing that prevents you from doing anything is the possibility of being caught seems to imply a lack of an internal deterrent that doesn't rely on fear of being punished. It appears to me from what you told her that you were trying to make that clear to her, which would have definitely worried me if I had been in her place, even though I'd most likely have assumed you were misrepresenting how you would actually act in the case of being safe from "getting caught."

• I think that "good," "bad," "right," and "wrong" are all relative terms that can and mostly do vary from person to person, society to society, and from one religion to another, bar some bare "basics" that appear to be shared among most people regardless of where they are or what they believe, such as "don't murder" and "don't steal," etc.

However, in a situation like the one you described in your OP, I wouldn't really care about the differences in the way we use such labels as long as they don't hint at committing future crimes or hurting other people; I'd care most about the actual consequences of what the use of such labels would entail.

For example, if someone told me that they think murder is a "good" thing, I'd be concerned about the harms that such a view could entail. It would be far more than a simple difference in our worldviews — expressing opinions that don't uphold not causing harm to others can be a good indicator of future misbehavior. I don't think it comes as any real surprise that someone may consider abstract concepts to be very relevant to the actual world when such concepts can and do influence how many people act.

• Having said the above, I think it's worth pointing out that I'm not implying that what you told your mom necessarily means that you'll engage in illegal conduct in the future... since I think that what you said may well be misrepresenting the way you'd act in real situations that lack an external punishment as a consequence of committing a crime(s).

Also, have you considered that your mom's shock and "flipping right out" might have just been out of concern for your own well-being rather than any difference in ethical or philosophical approaches?

Not only have I considered it, I'm positive it is, but as I said, that's not my concern, my concern is how she should have thought about it at least.

 

[Willamena]

One individual's opinions out of everyone's becomes meaningless once someone disagrees, because a murderer's opinion is no better or worse than a complete "moral" man's.

I don't understand. Why do you say this?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

How do you come to that conclusion?
Just about everyone has the ability to experience empathy. We generally feel empathy for those we care about or relate to.

Sure, everyone has the ability to. Everyone has the ability to be selfish as well. I decide that both are logically impaired and I am in no need to be selfish or empathetic.

So for example, a person may not have any empathy for an animal if they believe animals don't have sentience.
And people who are really immature tend to be quite selfish. Sometimes a very serious and somewhat traumatic situation can totally change that, give the person some realisations and make them less selfish and ignorant.

It's not ignorance if you think about it, it's just pointless, but just as pointless as empathy. It is also just as immature as empathy.

Most people have the capacity for empathy but it takes a little bit of wisdom to trigger it. Until then its very selective.

You can call it wisdom, but overall it's pointless and at most has no objective good side to it.

If you are really worried about your own lack of empathy, go to a slaughter house or someplace where people are being tortured or abused and if you still don't feel anything then maybe get yourself locked up.

It's not that I'm worried about it, I'm worried about people overusing empathy for then the meaning of empathy loses its value.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I don't understand. Why do you say this?

How I reached the conclusion was in the post.

 

[Willamena]

How I reached the conclusion was in the post.

Okay. I guess I'll just take my not understanding and go.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

What confuses you in what I said?

 

[Willamena]

An opinion is meaningful regardless of whether anyone agrees or disagrees with it.

 

[Riverwolf]

Prove this please. I would decline.

So, you'd decline all of the proof I'd offer?

I'll wager that you're statement that most people don't feel empathy is something you've experienced but don't have any proof for, and likewise, my statement that most people do feel empathy for those with whom they have assigned familiarity (if my example of family and friends is too specific) is based on experience and observation. Virtually everyone I've ever talked to has felt empathy.

It's not a strong one if it were. There are many people who completely hate their families and friends.

Family I can understand, but how do you hate friends? Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of having friends?

But I can prove easily that we're a very strong social species by the fact that we're talking to each other at all.

 

[Madhuri]

Sure, everyone has the ability to. Everyone has the ability to be selfish as well. I decide that both are logically impaired and I am in no need to be selfish or empathetic.

Since selfish and empathetic tend to be on opposite side of a scale, what are you? How can you not be one or the other?
Or to put it another way, it's empathy that generally causes a person to become less selfish since we all start out totally self centered. Without empathy how do you become not selfish?

It's not ignorance if you think about it, it's just pointless, but just as pointless as empathy. It is also just as immature as empathy.

Why is empathy pointless? Empathy has a huge impact on the world, just as selfishness does. Empathy is highly motivational and guides action. So how can it be pointless?

You don't seem to find importance in human action. Our attitudes influence the world, even the smallest actions. So how can you say these things are pointless? Unless you find no value in the results of life and the world. Are you a nihilist?

About the immaturity, you evidently haven't studied psychology. In the field of psychology, empathy is one of the signs of psychological maturity. A person without empathy is considered either extremely immature (children or people who are slow to mature) or have an actual disorder.

You can call it wisdom, but overall it's pointless and at most has no objective good side to it.

I disagree. How do you define 'good'? People help others because of empathy. Don;t you call helping others 'good'?

It's not that I'm worried about it, I'm worried about people overusing empathy for then the meaning of empathy loses its value.

I don't see how this is true. Who cares if the meaning of a word loses value if people are actually being empathetic?
Or have I misunderstood your meaning?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

An opinion is meaningful regardless of whether anyone agrees or disagrees with it.

Meaning is relative. What I meant by meaningless means its absoluteness drops to 0.

So, you'd decline all of the proof I'd offer?

Eh... if I can't debate against it then I wont.

I'll wager that you're statement that most people don't feel empathy is something you've experienced but don't have any proof for, and likewise, my statement that most people do feel empathy for those with whom they have assigned familiarity (if my example of family and friends is too specific) is based on experience and observation. Virtually everyone I've ever talked to has felt empathy.

You're right, it was possibly a mistake to go by observation by using the word 'most' objectively. To be fair, most people I know have no empathy.

Family I can understand, but how do you hate friends? Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of having friends?

You can say so, but it's not definite.

But I can prove easily that we're a very strong social species by the fact that we're talking to each other at all.

Speaking to each other does not mean I have interest in your ethical opinions, sometimes a robber talks to the banker.