To stop a killer.: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » To stop a killer. » To stop a killer.

To stop a killer.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

To stop a killer.

h0dgey84bc
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Location: Manchester,England

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 84

Posted 03/06/08 - 01:25 PM: Subject: To stop a killer.	#1
Psycopaths are characterised by emotional indifference, they feel no empathy for the suffering of others, and in some cases enjoy the suffering of others. My question is, if morality is completley subjective, what philosophically sound arguments exist to convince a highly intelligent, highly reasonable, philosophically well versed and logically thinking psycopath not to commit what would be considered traditionally immoral acts? For the purposes of this argument let's consider a theoretical psycopath who has some kind of legal immunity, as I wish to avoid the obvious argument "If you commit act x, then you will go to Jail". I am searching for what I consider to be true morality rather than behavioural motivations based on control ( Heaven/Hell, Jail etc).

SIR2U
The Wonderor of Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1380

Posted 03/06/08 - 06:07 PM:	#2
h0dgey84bc you wrote: what philosophically sound arguments exist to convince a highly intelligent, highly reasonable, philosophically well versed and logically thinking psycopath not to commit what would be considered traditionally immoral acts? None at all. Psycopath; Someone with a sociopathic personality; a person with an antisocial personality disorder ('psychopath' was once widely used but has now been superseded by 'sociopath') This type of disorder would probable make it inpossible for the person to be reasonable and in certain areas to to think logically.
Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

h0dgey84bc
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Location: Manchester,England

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 84

Posted 03/07/08 - 05:42 AM:	#3
ok, well for the purposes of this discussion let's just use the definition, that a pyscopath is simply devoid of emotion such as empathy. Logical thinking etcetara will not be affected. I personally believe this is somewhat closer to the truth than you may imagine anyhow.

PontificatingChauncy
Student (aren't we all?)

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 27, 2007

Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 265

Posted 03/07/08 - 05:43 PM:	#4
Nothing: Morality, without the appeal to authority, is little more than codifying empathy and guilt. My ability to empathize is half (the other being reason) of the foundation I need for a moral code. While reason supplies me the ability to moralize, empathy provides me with the motive (or the reason-ha!)
The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao. That thing is a chauncy

Seneca
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 06, 2005

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 217

Posted 03/07/08 - 05:54 PM:	#5
I don't think the backstory is very useful to your question here. You may as well just ask where any of us get our ethics, namely upbringing, vis-a-vis experience with dealing with others and acknowledging their value. h0dgey84bc wrote: Psycopaths are characterised by emotional indifference, they feel no empathy for the suffering of others, and in some cases enjoy the suffering of others. They can't enjoy the suffering of others while they are indifferent emotionally. h0dgey84bc wrote: My question is, if morality is completley subjective, what philosophically sound arguments exist to convince a highly intelligent, highly reasonable, philosophically well versed and logically thinking psycopath not to commit what would be considered traditionally immoral acts? This begs the questions: 1. What possible incentives does this person have to commit immoral acts, provided he has all this affluent upbringing? 2. If he is well versed philosophically (including ethics) he would know better than to break the golden law of not harming others especially without even any incentive. 3. If he get's sadistic pleasure out of this, and he is immune to state laws, he is simply succumbing to his own pathology in spite of better judgement.

Kreius
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 10, 2007

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 97

Posted 03/07/08 - 06:24 PM:	#6
I blame immoral actions on our separation from basic instinct, so the more we think, less we tend to act on instinctual impulse; so, sociopaths have actually attained the final stage of human emotional evolution. Though they can't function properly, this is how we may end up. And from this morality comes, the convergence of the plates of Instinct and Thought create the subduction zone of morality. Edit: Divergent plates don't create subduction zones, but any form of plate movement would fit here. Edited by Kreius on 03/08/08 - 01:21 PM
"Challenge your professors, even when you agree with them." -Herr Iosity

Ruthless, for Reason
Psychologist of Logic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 07, 2008
Location: The moon and looking down.

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 16

Posted 03/07/08 - 07:51 PM:	#7
h0dgey84bc wrote: Psycopaths are characterised by emotional indifference, they feel no empathy for the suffering of others, and in some cases enjoy the suffering of others. My question is, if morality is completley subjective, what philosophically sound arguments exist to convince a highly intelligent, highly reasonable, philosophically well versed and logically thinking psycopath not to commit what would be considered traditionally immoral acts? For the purposes of this argument let's consider a theoretical psycopath who has some kind of legal immunity, as I wish to avoid the obvious argument "If you commit act x, then you will go to Jail". I am searching for what I consider to be true morality rather than behavioural motivations based on control ( Heaven/Hell, Jail etc). Well, technically speaking, I'm a sociopath. I would like to think I'm intelligent, reasonable, and logical. But of course, your demanded terms are subject to interpretation. I have an also less common personality disorder known as schizoid which includes less then %1 of the general population. If I, decided to kill someone, there would be no real way to affect me in any way that would change my mind. I would have no reason. The terms you have put forth, would dictate naturally that the said person has put great effort and analysis into the situation, and finds their actions the proper ones to take. Understand, you are talking about someone who does nothing without an excellent reason. They have no ties to society. They have no love or hate for man kind. You are describing a person whom does not even fit in the category of humanity. We are like machines, doing only what is logical and necessary for our survival and only influencing others if we find it needed.
"There is no right or wrong. The only right is what we fight to create. We call 'evil' the things that oppose us."

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 03/07/08 - 09:30 PM:	#8
h0dgey84bc wrote: Psycopaths are characterised by emotional indifference, they feel no empathy for the suffering of others, and in some cases enjoy the suffering of others. My question is, if morality is completley subjective, what philosophically sound arguments exist to convince a highly intelligent, highly reasonable, philosophically well versed and logically thinking psycopath not to commit what would be considered traditionally immoral acts? For the purposes of this argument let's consider a theoretical psycopath who has some kind of legal immunity, as I wish to avoid the obvious argument "If you commit act x, then you will go to Jail". I am searching for what I consider to be true morality rather than behavioural motivations based on control ( Heaven/Hell, Jail etc). I look at morality as an unconscious application of game theory. The psychopath, normal individuals and society, (or the social contract), are all players, laying out a matrix of subjective values and possible courses of actions. Each action can be categorized as competitive, (beneficial to only the player), or cooperative, (beneficial to both players). Weighing the course of action based on subjective values and artificial and natural incentives, (empathy and jail). A person who is rational and well-informed will usually choose the course of action which benefits them the most. Most people choose to cooperate with society and their emotional resistance to allowing others to suffer. A rational psychopath would be choosing to compete because he felt that the benefit to one of his subjective values is being met. Even a psychopath will choose cooperative actions which help him achieve those values -- being helpful and courteous to someone in order to avoid capture or to gain access to another victim. Problem is, most people aren't truly rational. There are a lot of human psychological biases which allow people, (who may be unaware they are playing this game), to overestimate benefit and underestimate risk. They balance risks based more on ancient instincts, impulses and faulty reasoning than logic. There is also a bias in humans to distrust those who appear not to share their emotional limitations. Robots are often portrayed as "evil", simply for lacking empathy, while a truly rational robot might decide that cooperating with all the demands of humans is the most beneficial to themselves.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Ruthless, for Reason
Psychologist of Logic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 07, 2008
Location: The moon and looking down.

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 16

Posted 03/07/08 - 10:14 PM:	#9
swstephe wrote: I look at morality as an unconscious application of game theory. The psychopath, normal individuals and society, (or the social contract), are all players, laying out a matrix of subjective values and possible courses of actions. Each action can be categorized as competitive, (beneficial to only the player), or cooperative, (beneficial to both players). Weighing the course of action based on subjective values and artificial and natural incentives, (empathy and jail). A person who is rational and well-informed will usually choose the course of action which benefits them the most. Most people choose to cooperate with society and their emotional resistance to allowing others to suffer. A rational psychopath would be choosing to compete because he felt that the benefit to one of his subjective values is being met. Even a psychopath will choose cooperative actions which help him achieve those values -- being helpful and courteous to someone in order to avoid capture or to gain access to another victim. Problem is, most people aren't truly rational. There are a lot of human psychological biases which allow people, (who may be unaware they are playing this game), to overestimate benefit and underestimate risk. They balance risks based more on ancient instincts, impulses and faulty reasoning than logic. There is also a bias in humans to distrust those who appear not to share their emotional limitations. Robots are often portrayed as "evil", simply for lacking empathy, while a truly rational robot might decide that cooperating with all the demands of humans is the most beneficial to themselves. I agree with you, and indeed I found this analogy entertaining. How strange it is to understand the similarity of our life to a game... oh well. "Psychopaths" as we are called are often uncaring and only doing things out of a necessity. A psychopath who kills... I believe my theory would be accurate in estimating that this person has come to see that they can confirm their "existence" (reasoning for living, being born, etc.) through removing the existence of others. This is a very distinctively special kind of person. I have on rare occasion come to meet persons of highly similar beliefs. The person most notable in my mind, (although I will not name him for his and his family's sake) was an old war veteran whom they called "Raijinken". He was a japanese pilot in WWII. He was originally a kamikaze that couldn't bring himself to death... then, the government witnessed his ability and made him one of their lead specialists in aeronautical combat. He eventually went practically insane because of all the memories and sorrows he held. He was placed in a psych ward not far from my house and I got to go and see him once. Behind glass of course and other precautions of that nature but there was a defined "presence" about him. It made me wonder... but still. At the time of my seeing him he was devoid of all emotion and beyond any human being I'd ever seen. He was most definitely the most pitiful person I've ever come to understand.
"There is no right or wrong. The only right is what we fight to create. We call 'evil' the things that oppose us."

willowwater
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 07, 2008
Location: swansea, wales, uk.

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 03/08/08 - 07:57 AM:	#10
I think a psychopath/sociopath is indifferent to human emotion and suffering due to blocking all emotions out of their minds whether it's a conscious effort or not. I think they do this because they have experienced intense emotions at some point previously, and was extremely overwelmed by the feeling. A fear of losing control of their mind, by having a nervous breakdown or something similar, is probably the final trigger which kicks in the survival instinct. Some people in this situation, give in and fall apart, possibly commiting suicide. Other people take the alternative road and suppress the emotions, and trying to get on with life. But for some people, that's not enough. And those type of people must convince themselves that they have no emotions at all, resulting in being harmful to others to prove to themselves that they can do it withought feeling, such as mercy, compassion, and guilt. Thus bringing me to the conlusion that a sociopath is basically a really sensitive empath, who is in denial because their mind can't cope with intense emotions. So back to the question The way to stop a psychopaths urge to kill, is to seek out what event sparked him off in the beginning, and getting him to face the facts,release the protective blocks, and deal with the emotions!!!
"if it feels right, it probably is"!

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.