Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
i think so
actually as far as i'm aware that's a key difference between psycopathy and sociology. I'm not a psychologist though so i might be wrong.
psychopathy and sociopathy*
I've heard of disciplinary wars, but that's a bit extreme
i quit life
it is not like it is a genetic illness.
naked lab assistant
DUNDUN DER DUN DUN DUN DUNDUNDUN
DUNDUN DER DUN DUN DUN DUNDUNDUN
DUNDUN DER DUN DUN DUN DUNDUNDUN
Have a gander at the Ryan Gosling thread.
because psychopathy (I'm presuming you mean as diagnosed by formal neuropsychological rather than genetic testing, which doesn't look like is ever going to be reliably shown) is generally considered an internal trait measure rather than a behavioural one. So, there's no 1-1 link between having psychopathological traits and committing the sorts of behaviour that are associated with being a psychopath in the media at large. Many people with psychopathological traits get by on a day to day basis just fine. There's a better argument for having them on a risk register. not that I agree with that either.
social liberalism basically exists on the premise that the state can act as a moral arbiter, both to increase individual welfare and social welfare. This means that the state is morally obliged to guide individual human welfare, on the premise that limiting choice isn't necessarily limiting freedom- so for instance, a higher tax rate limits ones choice on what to spend ones money on, but because of the non-linear nature of freedom can in fact increase it.
So it is arguably the case with reproduction. Sterilisation places no other constraints on individuals except that they can't reproduce, which can theoretically guide their actions so that they are more fulfilling to that individual (although social liberalism as a moral theory of the state generally doesn't account for psycopathic psychology, so this is a bit tricky to predict or account for). It also arguably increases general social freedom.
it examines issues of the certainty of evidence, and contains an applied appeal to pragmatism as policy objective.
in that case, i'd say since sterilisation arguably isn't necessarily a curtailment of freedom, even though most people with psychopathy aren't explicitly harmful to society, the benefits of sterilisation would outweigh the negatives (which are potentially almost non-existent)
Sterilisation is curtailment of freedom... In what way is it not?
And how would it be a benefit to society? Just because my dad is a psychopath (he isn't), does not mean I will be.
as i said, social liberalism works on the basis that you limit some aspects of freedom in order to increase freedoms that will maximise social and individual utility. I agree with this, and i'm asking why this wouldn't apply to sterilisation in some circumstances.
only actual human lives
they're arging that this hypothetical sterilisation *won't* actually 'maximise social and individual liberty' to an extent that makes it worthwhile going down that path. the pro-choice argument is based on the premise that it unarguably DOES 'maximise social and individual liberty' and it's also about supporting reproductive CHOICE as a principle that outweighs 'potential life'. any form of forced sterilisation doesn't just void potential life, it also removes reproductive choice, so it's arguably at odds with the basic premises of the pro-choice position
had some pretty nasty pro-eugenics streaks which still gets brought up as a gotcha tactic by anti-choice people, and in some non-western countries there's still a great degree of hostility to the western pro-choice movement thanks to a history of forced sterilisation and forced abortion. so it feels very politically dodgy to start suggesting that sterilisation of undesirables is fundamentally compatible with the pro-choice position
but that was massively class driven, and based on the false belief that poor people are genetically inferior to rich people, which generally speaking isn't true at all. Psychopathy transcends class, so it doesn't have the same really unsavoury undertone. Also what you're saying kind of sounds like the slippery slope argument, and i hate the slippery slope argument.
I think if I was given the choice right now I probably wouldn't do it on rule utilitarian grounds, and the fact that it's... kinda radical, and sort of debases human conscience to the level of the psychopath to the extent that we'd be willing to do that to someone. I don't think that precludes us from having a moral discussion about it though, since it's the actual committing of the act that's the dodgy part, and not the intended effects.
that you were framing people's objections to this as *only* based in the potential life argument (and therefore contradictory to pro-choice) rather than based in the reproductive freedom argument (that the potential utility is not at present definite enough to justify removing certain people's reproductive rights). it's that weird latching on to the potential-life thing (which nobody was arguing for) that seems to imply you think psychopaths are a category of people for whom it would be morally fine to sterilise just in case, because they don't deserve/need/want reproductive rights. it's not necessarily an absurd slippery slope to suggest that might set a precedent for other socially undesirable categories of people, especially given all the interest in the genetic heritability of violent tendencies and so on... as to the first paragraph, class-based genetics might have died out but race-based genetics is still lurking around
i guess you were actually just talking about a bizarro hypothetical where we could definitively ascertain that sterilisation would eradicate psychopathy, but idk enough about psychopathy to weigh up the ethics of that and it doesn't really seem in line with any current science anywayz
11-25% of male inmates meet the criteria for psychopathy
A study by Hare and colleagues suggested that one to two percent of the US population score high enough on a screening version of the scale to be considered potential psychopaths. The diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder covers two to three times as many prisoners as are rated as psychopaths on Hare's scale.
Although psychopathy is associated with and in some cases defined by conduct problems, criminality or violence, most psychopaths are not violent.
surely this would maximise social liberty and welfare? I mean, not only are psychopaths violent criminals, they're also more likely to be in positions of power over everyone.
I would also question whether it's possible for a psychopath to give a shit about a child that belongs to them, given that they don't have a conscience and stuff. I don't know for certain though, obvs. I'm still not a psychologist. But if they don't or if it's likely they don't then I'd say sterilisation would be overwhelmingly the lesser of two evils. If they do then I dunno. What I said about social liberalism still stands to an extent.
because it isn't. interesting enough hypothetical in terms of the social welfare/curtailment of freedoms stuff, but the second para is where it goes into dodgy territory; i'm not at all comfortable with 'how much you would probably care about your potential kids' being a factor in the morality of forced sterilisation
then you're also gonna have to account for a whole bunch of other stuff like disability issues in that framework. let's not get into that though, eh
more just that if the nature of psychopathy means they can't care about their own children, then we're not really curtailing their liberty given that it's something that has no utility for them.
But points taken anyway.
let's just assume that I've ruined that argument by laying out all the standard criticisms rule utilitarianism.
this could be a problem.
well i suppose i'm questioning the fact that not sterilising people should be a rule. Or, it should be a rule insofar as sterilisation will have no positive effect on society given what we currently know about genetics and so on.
Not on my watch, pal.
Ted Bundy had a daughter who hasn't committed any crimes
Dennis Radar has two sons, again neither has committed any crimes
Charles Manson has a son, no crimes committed by him either
Gary Ridgeway has children, again no crimes committed by them either.
So I think it's safe to say that if serial killers can have healthy functioning children, I don't see how sterilisation would alter this fact? Also, social and moral upbringings play significant roles in the formation of psychotic tendencies - even if you have the DNA capacity to commit a crime - see XXY chromosomes and XYY chromosomes, as well as damage to the frontal lobe and various other extreme medical cases that could contribute to said Psychopathy.
since agreeing with abortion is essentially agreeing that `potential human lives` have no moral worth*. I'm not suggesting we go round murdering the existing kids of psychopaths, just prevent them from having any more.
*well i suppose not everyone thinks that, but they're wrong. I don't see how potential lives could ever have moral worth, but i'm open to debate i suppose.
someone answer my question about the percentage of psychopaths that manage to function as normal citizens
i mean unless you can conclusively prove that a significant number of psychopaths will pass on psycho genes to a significant number of kids who will then have a significantly detrimental effect on society, your whole argument kinda seems like 'might as well do it just in case, since psychopaths are bad people anyway and it's morally fine to sterilise bad people'. now i realise psychopaths are a pretty special category and i don't wanna get all slippery slope buuuut that doesn't seem like a super awesome precedent to set for the general ethics of forced sterilisation, tbh
Are you trolling or is this seriously your views? That people who believe in abortion should be in agreement that people with psychopathic tendencies should be sterilised? If that's the case then half of our Government/people in power should be sterilised!
^It's the same basic principle
I don't think this means you SHOULD believe in sterilisation of psychopaths, but i don't think it's a valid argument to use against it given your presumed support for abortion rights.
and that has resulted in fat blokes wearing ghastly Tap Out tee shirts in pubs across the land.
(by HMPS psychologists, not just by punters), it's not a genetic condition.
The very worst I have ever accounted, a guy who was a an absolute menace and would launch into ultra-violence at the slightest hint of provocation was the son of the head of chemistry at a redbrick university and an accountant. He'd never been in care, parents were happily married, all of his siblings were doing well...he just had it in him. I've heard the sterilisation debate many times, but to me it strays far too close to social Darwinism.
was ruin eugenics for the rest of us.
before someone else is born who could put it out of the question entirely.
If you could be 100% sure of them being murderous psychopaths of course. Otherwise they will just carry on killing, but not pass on this to any (more) children. I think a department of pre-crime is a while off yet though.
does anyone know roughly what percentage of violent crimes are committed by actual psychopaths? also, what percentage of diagnosed psychopaths manage to live normal non-violent lives?
isnt it just like saying 'a good person' or 'a bad person'. ?
If not HOW do you measure it if you do not have dramatic awful events that often lead to someone being referred to as a psychopath
or is one of them a specialist subset of the other?
They share certain common traits, most notably a lack of empathy/conscience.
But, a sociopath will find it difficult to live a normal life, foster relationships etc as not only do they lack empathy, they find it impossible to comprehend.
Conversely, a psychopath understands the concept of empathy/human emotion, but will use this understanding to manipulate/exploit others. They're perfectly capable of forming relationships/friendships.
instead of a cold-hearted analytical engagement with this week's episode of DiS Moral Relativity I am left shaking my head and throwing up my hands at the inhumanity of *it all*
does the amorality of an agent entail amoral worth of that agent etc
you're just grasping at the smallest logical truth and extending it ever outwards and bludgeoning humanity to death with it.
It amazes me that people place such a huge value in Logic. Why is it good to have things ordered and linked? Because it pleases us and because the opposite makes us uneasy? Why then does that feeling of peace and right-mindedness outweigh all others in this vastly complex life? It's pretty clear that by favoring one form of pleasure and happiness you are negating the rest. Laws and logic do not make one man nor mankind as a whole any happier...what's that you say? 'Happiness isn't the goal just the means?' like cunting bollocks it isn't!
the abstractive and universalising tendencies of philosophy, which is a sentiment I can sympathise with, even if I also think that it's impossible simply to reject those tendencies tout court.
who can swim faster than a shark