I suspect that “babykilling is OK in and of itself, but it’s a visible marker for psychosis and we want to justify taking action against psychotics and therefore we criminalize babykilling anyway” isn’t a particularly stable thought in human minds, and pretty quickly decomposes into “babykilling is not OK,” “psychosis is not OK,” “babykillers are psychotic,” a 25% chance of “psychotics kill babies,” and two photons.
I know it’s stupid to jump in here, but you don’t mean psychotic or psychosis. You mean psychopathic (a.k.a. sociopathic). Please don’t lump the mentally ill together with evil murderers. Actual psychotic people are hearing voices and miserable, not gleefully plotting to kill their own children. You’re thinking of sociopaths. Psychotics don’t kill babies any more than anyone else. It’s sociopaths who should all be killed or otherwise removed from society.
Some of the traits listed on the wikipedia page for psychopathy are traits that I want and have modified myself towards:
Psychopaths do not feel fear as deeply as normal people and do not manifest any of the normal physical responses to threatening stimuli. For instance, if a normal person were accosted in the street by a gun-wielding mugger, he/she might sweat, tremble, lose control of his/her bowels or vomit. Psychopaths feel no such sensations, and are often perplexed when they observe them in others.
Psychopaths do not suffer profound emotional trauma such as despair. This may be part of the reason why punishment has little effect on them: it leaves no emotional impression on them. There are anecdotes of psychopaths reacting nonchalantly to being sentenced to life in prison.
Some psychopaths also possess great charm and a great ability to manipulate others. They have fewer social inhibitions, are extroverted, dominant, and confident. They are not afraid of causing offense, being rejected, or being put down. When these things do happen, they tend to dismiss them and are not discouraged from trying again.
It’s sociopaths who should all be killed or otherwise removed from society.
Lots of sociopaths as the term is clinically defined live perfectly productive lives, often in high-stimulation, high-risk jobs that neurotypical people don’t want to do like small aircraft piloting, serving in the special forces of their local military and so on. They don’t learn well from bad experiences and they need a lot of stimulation to get a high, so those sorts of roles are ideal for them.
They don’t need to be killed or removed from society, they need to be channelled into jobs where they can have fun and where their psychological resilience is an asset.
Yes, but people with different types of illness vary in whether they are likely to kill other people, which is the question here. This metastudy found half of male criminals have antisocial personality disorder (including sociopaths and psychopaths) and less than 4% have psychotic disorders. In other words, criminals are unlikely to be people who have lost touch with reality and more likely to be people who just don’t care about other people.
Interesting, I knew that the rate was very low for psychotic people, but not that it was so high for sociopathic ones. I still don’t think all sociopaths should be killed.
I was being a bit pedantic. When she says “don’t lump the mentally ill together with evil murderers” I think she means “don’t lump [psychotic] people in with evil murderers”, which I don’t disagree with. However, not all sociopaths are evil murderers. I would even say it’s wrong to lump these mentally ill sociopaths together with evil murderers.
In other words, AspiringKnitter,
Please don’t lump the mentally ill together with evil murderers.
Okay. I’ve never heard of any non-evil sociopaths before, but I’ll accept that they exist if you tell me they do.
What I meant was indeed that psychotic people aren’t any more evil on average than normal people. The point is irrelevant to the thread, but I make it wherever it needs to be made because conflating the two isn’t just sloppy, it harms real people in real life.
I think many sociopaths become high-powered businesspeople.
The other thing that “harms people in real life” is saying stuff like “sociopaths should all be killed or otherwise removed from society”. To say such things, you must override your moral beliefs, which is not a good habit to be in, and not a good image of yourself to cache.
To say such things, you must override your moral beliefs, which is not a good habit to be in, and not a good image of yourself to cache.
This may be a nitpick, but it’s not clear to me that “removing all sociopaths from society” will even be beneficial to the remaining society. It’s entirely possible that our society requires a certain number of sociopaths in order to function.
I have no hard evidence one way or the other, but I’m pretty sure that, historically, plans that involved “remove all X from society” turned out very poorly, for any given X.
yeah. mostly. Though it would be nice to catch murderers before they kill anyone. At this point tho, I dont think we are generally rational enough to figure out in advance who the murderers are without huge collateral disutility.
I’m going to stop discussing this because it is about to get dangerously mindkillery.
Depends how far in advance you’re looking. Aiming a loaded gun, or charging forward while screaming and brandishing something sharp and heavy, provide very solid evidence before any injury is done, and modern medicine can turn what seemed like successful murder back into ‘attempted’ by making it possible to recover after the injury.
The other thing that “harms people in real life” is saying stuff like “sociopaths should all be killed or otherwise removed from society”. To say such things, you must override your moral beliefs, which is not a good habit to be in, and not a good image of yourself to cache.
Good point, although actually, my moral beliefs are consequentialist, and therefore actually formulated as “prevent the greatest possible number of murders” rather than “kill the fewest possible people personally”, so it’s not actually accurate to say I have to override moral beliefs to advocate removing sociopaths from society. But I guess the best idea is to neutralize the threat they pose while still giving them a chance at redemption. You’re right.
I think many sociopaths become high-powered businesspeople.
I thought most high-powered businesspeople were evil. XP
my moral beliefs are consequentialist, and therefore actually formulated as “prevent the greatest possible number of murders” rather than “kill the fewest possible people personally”, so it’s not actually accurate to say I have to override moral beliefs to advocate removing sociopaths from society.
Of course. I agree that one death is preferable to many, no matter who or what does the killing. I am talking about the effects on yourself of endorsing murder, and possibly the less noble real reason you chose that solution.
Maybe you have observed what I am talking about: people having to steel themselves against their moral intuitions when they say or do certain things. You can see it in their faces; a grim, slightly sadistic hatred, I call it the “murder face”. I don’t think people do this because they are strict utilitarians. The murder face is not the reaction you would expect from a utilitarian reluctantly deciding that someone has to be executed.
I don’t think you said “sociopaths should all be killed or otherwise removed from society” for strictly utilitarian reasons either. I would expect a utilitarian to stress out and shit themselves for a few days (or as long as they had, up to years) trying to think of some other way to solve the problem before they would ever even think of murder.
The thing is, trades of one life for many are nearly always false dichotomies. There is some twisted way that humans are unjustifiably drawn to consider murder without even trying to consider alternatives. See the sequence on ethical injunctions.
Thru the known mechanisms of self-image, cached thoughts and so on, proposing murder as a solution just makes this problem worse in the future. You literally become less moral by saying that.
I would expect a utilitarian to stress out and shit themselves for a few days (or as long as they had, up to years) trying to think of some other way to solve the problem before they would ever even think of murder.
But I don’t have to solve the problem. Whatever I think of regarding sociopaths is pretty pointless, since I won’t have the chance to do it anyway, and even if I decided I really did think that was definitely the best course of action (which I’m not certain of; note that I’ve always qualified it with “or otherwise removed from society”, which could include all sorts of other possibilities) after considering all the other possibilities, I doubt that I personally would be able to do it anyway, and if I did I would go to jail and I don’t want that either. So for me to say it is as easy as the trolley problem (am I the only person for whom the trolley problem is easy?).
The thing is, trades of one life for many are nearly always false dichotomies. There is some twisted way that humans are unjustifiably drawn to consider murder without even trying to consider alternatives. See the sequence on ethical injunctions.
Thank you. If I’m ever in a position where killing someone is a course of action that’s even on my radar as something to consider, I’ll bear that in mind.
Thru the known mechanisms of self-image, cached thoughts and so on, proposing murder as a solution just makes this problem worse in the future. You literally become less moral by saying that.
Thank you for pointing that out. Just for the record, not killing people is one of my terminal values, and if I’m ever in a position to deal personally with the sociopath problem, I’ll be considering the other possibilities first.
Yeah, my understanding is that they exist. Just wondering, how would you expect to hear about a non-evil sociopath?
Yeah, I’m totally on board with you there (though I’m not really fond of the word evil). I remember hearing that psychotic people are much more likely to hurt themselves than average, but not more likely to hurt others. And yeah, it’s bad to consider them to be “evil” when they’re not or to contribute to a societal model of them that does the same.
I was being a bit pedantic. When she says “don’t lump the mentally ill together with evil murderers” I think she means “don’t lump [psychotic] people in with evil murderers”, which I don’t disagree with. However, not all sociopaths are evil murderers. I would even say it’s wrong to lump these mentally ill sociopaths together with evil murderers.
Are we talking about psychotic people here or sociopaths (psychopaths)? The two are vastly different. Or are you saying that neither psychotic people nor sociopaths are necessarily evil?
(It’s odd how the words “schizophrenic” and “psychotic” bring up such different connotations even though schizophrenia is the poster-child of psychosis. (Saying this as a schizotypal person with “ultra high risk” of schizophrenia.))
I suspect that “babykilling is OK in and of itself, but it’s a visible marker for psychosis and we want to justify taking action against psychotics and therefore we criminalize babykilling anyway” isn’t a particularly stable thought in human minds, and pretty quickly decomposes into “babykilling is not OK,” “psychosis is not OK,” “babykillers are psychotic,” a 25% chance of “psychotics kill babies,” and two photons.
I know it’s stupid to jump in here, but you don’t mean psychotic or psychosis. You mean psychopathic (a.k.a. sociopathic). Please don’t lump the mentally ill together with evil murderers. Actual psychotic people are hearing voices and miserable, not gleefully plotting to kill their own children. You’re thinking of sociopaths. Psychotics don’t kill babies any more than anyone else. It’s sociopaths who should all be killed or otherwise removed from society.
Some of the traits listed on the wikipedia page for psychopathy are traits that I want and have modified myself towards:
Lots of sociopaths as the term is clinically defined live perfectly productive lives, often in high-stimulation, high-risk jobs that neurotypical people don’t want to do like small aircraft piloting, serving in the special forces of their local military and so on. They don’t learn well from bad experiences and they need a lot of stimulation to get a high, so those sorts of roles are ideal for them.
They don’t need to be killed or removed from society, they need to be channelled into jobs where they can have fun and where their psychological resilience is an asset.
Huh, okay. Thanks.
Aren’t sociopaths mentally ill too?
Yes, but people with different types of illness vary in whether they are likely to kill other people, which is the question here. This metastudy found half of male criminals have antisocial personality disorder (including sociopaths and psychopaths) and less than 4% have psychotic disorders. In other words, criminals are unlikely to be people who have lost touch with reality and more likely to be people who just don’t care about other people.
Interesting, I knew that the rate was very low for psychotic people, but not that it was so high for sociopathic ones. I still don’t think all sociopaths should be killed.
If you say they are, it’s in a totally different way. Taboo “mentally Ill”.
I was being a bit pedantic. When she says “don’t lump the mentally ill together with evil murderers” I think she means “don’t lump [psychotic] people in with evil murderers”, which I don’t disagree with. However, not all sociopaths are evil murderers. I would even say it’s wrong to lump these mentally ill sociopaths together with evil murderers.
In other words, AspiringKnitter,
Okay. I’ve never heard of any non-evil sociopaths before, but I’ll accept that they exist if you tell me they do.
What I meant was indeed that psychotic people aren’t any more evil on average than normal people. The point is irrelevant to the thread, but I make it wherever it needs to be made because conflating the two isn’t just sloppy, it harms real people in real life.
I think many sociopaths become high-powered businesspeople.
The other thing that “harms people in real life” is saying stuff like “sociopaths should all be killed or otherwise removed from society”. To say such things, you must override your moral beliefs, which is not a good habit to be in, and not a good image of yourself to cache.
This may be a nitpick, but it’s not clear to me that “removing all sociopaths from society” will even be beneficial to the remaining society. It’s entirely possible that our society requires a certain number of sociopaths in order to function.
I have no hard evidence one way or the other, but I’m pretty sure that, historically, plans that involved “remove all X from society” turned out very poorly, for any given X.
yeah good point. Not all sociopaths are murderers, just cut the middleman and do whatever with the murderers.
Proxy tests (are you a sociopath, are you black, do you have a shaved head, etc) are a terrible idea.
By “murderer,” here, do you mean someone who has actually committed murder?
yeah. mostly. Though it would be nice to catch murderers before they kill anyone. At this point tho, I dont think we are generally rational enough to figure out in advance who the murderers are without huge collateral disutility.
I’m going to stop discussing this because it is about to get dangerously mindkillery.
Depends how far in advance you’re looking. Aiming a loaded gun, or charging forward while screaming and brandishing something sharp and heavy, provide very solid evidence before any injury is done, and modern medicine can turn what seemed like successful murder back into ‘attempted’ by making it possible to recover after the injury.
Good point, although actually, my moral beliefs are consequentialist, and therefore actually formulated as “prevent the greatest possible number of murders” rather than “kill the fewest possible people personally”, so it’s not actually accurate to say I have to override moral beliefs to advocate removing sociopaths from society. But I guess the best idea is to neutralize the threat they pose while still giving them a chance at redemption. You’re right.
I thought most high-powered businesspeople were evil. XP
Of course. I agree that one death is preferable to many, no matter who or what does the killing. I am talking about the effects on yourself of endorsing murder, and possibly the less noble real reason you chose that solution.
Maybe you have observed what I am talking about: people having to steel themselves against their moral intuitions when they say or do certain things. You can see it in their faces; a grim, slightly sadistic hatred, I call it the “murder face”. I don’t think people do this because they are strict utilitarians. The murder face is not the reaction you would expect from a utilitarian reluctantly deciding that someone has to be executed.
I don’t think you said “sociopaths should all be killed or otherwise removed from society” for strictly utilitarian reasons either. I would expect a utilitarian to stress out and shit themselves for a few days (or as long as they had, up to years) trying to think of some other way to solve the problem before they would ever even think of murder.
The thing is, trades of one life for many are nearly always false dichotomies. There is some twisted way that humans are unjustifiably drawn to consider murder without even trying to consider alternatives. See the sequence on ethical injunctions.
Thru the known mechanisms of self-image, cached thoughts and so on, proposing murder as a solution just makes this problem worse in the future. You literally become less moral by saying that.
But I don’t have to solve the problem. Whatever I think of regarding sociopaths is pretty pointless, since I won’t have the chance to do it anyway, and even if I decided I really did think that was definitely the best course of action (which I’m not certain of; note that I’ve always qualified it with “or otherwise removed from society”, which could include all sorts of other possibilities) after considering all the other possibilities, I doubt that I personally would be able to do it anyway, and if I did I would go to jail and I don’t want that either. So for me to say it is as easy as the trolley problem (am I the only person for whom the trolley problem is easy?).
Thank you. If I’m ever in a position where killing someone is a course of action that’s even on my radar as something to consider, I’ll bear that in mind.
Thank you for pointing that out. Just for the record, not killing people is one of my terminal values, and if I’m ever in a position to deal personally with the sociopath problem, I’ll be considering the other possibilities first.
Or, high powered politicians or the upper echelons of any religion’s leadership.
Yeah, my understanding is that they exist. Just wondering, how would you expect to hear about a non-evil sociopath?
Yeah, I’m totally on board with you there (though I’m not really fond of the word evil). I remember hearing that psychotic people are much more likely to hurt themselves than average, but not more likely to hurt others. And yeah, it’s bad to consider them to be “evil” when they’re not or to contribute to a societal model of them that does the same.
Are we talking about psychotic people here or sociopaths (psychopaths)? The two are vastly different. Or are you saying that neither psychotic people nor sociopaths are necessarily evil?
I am saying that neither are necessarily evil.
OK.
(It’s odd how the words “schizophrenic” and “psychotic” bring up such different connotations even though schizophrenia is the poster-child of psychosis. (Saying this as a schizotypal person with “ultra high risk” of schizophrenia.))
Where did the two photons come from?
The photons come from unjustified pattern-matching.
Oooh.
Exhibit A: me.
In the end, I just feel that it’s incompatible with my terminal values, one way or the other.