[MD] Morality and Prudence

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 5:01 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Matt said to Carl:
>
>  The psychopath, in fact, appears as Pirsig's insane brujo, outside the mythos (which makes it easy, then, to apply Pirsigian insight as a restorative to psychology). ... Dave's right: it would suck to have sociopaths.  But we shouldn't expect our pedagogy to wipe it out.  In fact, we need a moral philosophy that allows for their existence in society even while condemning the pattern for pedagogical reasons.    Okay, so _why_ would we do this?  In case some sociopath is the next brujo.  That's the answer that Pirsig additionally offers to typical Millian liberal morality, which just says that you should leave people alone as long as they don't mess with other people.  Pirsig helps us  to answer _why_ Mill was right: because leaving people alone to their own devices might help everyone in the long run.  Even though I doubt sociopathic behavior would be essential to his or her brujoness, i.e. lack of compassion would doubtfully be the next Dynamic leap forward, some sociopath m
>  ight have a great role to play (or rather, create).
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> The psychopathic Brujo? No way. I mean, psychopathology is a serious mental illness that precludes morality whereas the culture bearers are extraordinarily moral. These contrarians are known as "sacred" boundary crossers. Even though they both break the rules, it's a whole different deal.
>
> The wiki article on the "Hare Psychopathology Checklist" says, for example, that "in addition to lifestyle and criminal behavior the checklist assesses glib and superficial charm, grandiosity, need for stimulation, pathological lying, conning and manipulating, lack of remorse, callousness, poor behavioral controls, impulsivity, irresponsibility, failure to accept responsibility for one's own actions and so forth. The scores are used to predict risk for criminal re-offence and probability of rehabilitation."
>
> Similarly, the wiki article on "Psychopathy" describes the basic characteristics as follows. "The prototypical psychopath has deficits or deviance in several areas: interpersonal relationships, emotion, and behavior. Psychopaths gain satisfaction through antisocial behavior, and do not experience shame, guilt, or remorse for their actions. Psychopaths lack a sense of guilt or remorse for any harm they may have caused others, instead rationalizing the behavior, blaming someone else, or denying it outright. Psychopaths also lack empathy towards others in general, resulting in tactlessness, insensitivity, and contemptuousness. Psychopaths can have a superficial charm about them, enabled by a willingness to say anything to anyone without concern for accuracy or truth. Shallow affect also describes the psychopath's tendency for genuine emotion to be short-lived, glib and egocentric, with an overall cold demeanor. They tend to be impulsive and irresponsible, often failing to keep a
>  job or defaulting on debts.
> Researcher Robert Hare, whose Hare Psychopathy Checklist is widely used, describes psychopaths as "intraspecies predators". Also R.I. Simon uses the word predator to describe psychopaths. Elsewhere Hare and others write that psychopaths "use charisma, manipulation, intimidation, sexual intercourse and violence" to control others and to satisfy their own needs. Hare states that: "Lacking in conscience and empathy, they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse". He previously stated that: "What is missing, in other words, are the very qualities that allow a human being to live in social harmony".
> According to Hare, many psychopaths are superficially charming, and can excellently mimic normal human emotion;some psychopaths can blend in, undetected, in a variety of surroundings, including corporate environments."

Dan:

Yes, gotta agree with Dave. The terms Carl and Matt used are
incorrect. A psychopath isn't suffering from delusions. I believe Carl
is thinking of a psychotic. A big difference between the two is that a
psychotic person can be treated with drugs while there is no way to
make a psychopath care about others.

And... Monk isn't a sociopath. The character suffers from  an
obsessive-compulsive disorder but it is clear that he cares deeply
about others. One of the most charming things about him is how he
cannot give up on the love he feels for his dead wife. That's not
faked or superficial. As for Sherlock Holmes... I always thought of
him as a kind of a dick so it is entirely possible that he is indeed a
sociopath.

Dan