Alternative logic systems versus sociopathic traits.

[Park]

Because despite believing the act is wrong, I just want to do it or feel that it is the best of all the crappy options I have available at the time.

But wouldn't it be easier to say "the act is neutral but obtains a positive or negative value in a certain context"?

By adding a negative value to the act from the very beginning, you'r locked and are forced to violate your logic-value system in order to carry out the act.

 

[raincrow007]

I may not post whore enough but when I do I shall use this as my title. Never heard of it before but I like it

Obviously you never had to do it as punishment.

Fuckin'goodytwoshoes.

 

[cafe]

But wouldn't it be easier to say "the act is neutral but obtains a positive or negative value in a certain context"?

By adding a negative value to the act from the very beginning, you'r locked and are forced to violate your logic-value system in order to carry out the act.

It would be easier. I'm not sure that it would be better, though. For me, it is not possible.

 

[Totenkindly]

I may not post whore enough but when I do I shall use this as my title. Never heard of it before but I like it

if you know what a chalkboard is, you're showing your age.

(As I wrote it, I realized that we might be to the "Whiteboard" technological stage of society. Yikes!)

 

[Park]

Are they aware of it as "the societies norm" or as a value which is desirable? It's a critical distinction I think.

True, from what I read, it's the first.

I knew for many years that 2+2=4 but I only understood it a few years ago.
I studied maths in school and was taught that a minus multiplied by a minus is a plus but only once I'd reached university did it occur to me to ask why and then understood (thought I've forgotten it now).

Before understanding how can you say it's your value? Imposed values are not your own. A freethinking mind looks at why it may be bad to kill by disregarding the imposed values. Only after they have done this do they decide if killing is bad or not.

That's the difference I'm thinking of.

This makes me wonder if Fs or SJs, who often seem to easily be able to follow society's norm when it comes to good/bad, are able to do so because they don't ask questions to whether e.g. stealing is bad or because the norm values instictively feels right?

What interests me is that if he can do it anyway then does he validate doing it? If he validates doing it then what is the difference between that and it being right? If the only difference is the period for which the validation stands then it still stands that at that instance it was evaluated as the right thing to do.

That's why I find it easier to not apply a negative value to e.g. the act of stealing from the very beginning. It's like saying "weapons are bad" - "no weapons are not bad but they can be used in bad contexts".

 

[Park]

It would be easier. I'm not sure that it would be better, though. For me, it is not possible.

I know, I'm not saying it would be better/worse either, just two different ways of reasoning .

 

[Park]

Good idea.
My version.

Q. Is stealing wrong?
A. As a generalisation, yes.

Q. What if you are starving?
A. Again as a generalisation, yes but in terms of stealing food from someone who will not suffer unduly from it's absence then possibly not. In fact probably not as life is worth more than food in my opinion.

Q. So you'd starve rather than steal?
A. No. That'd be martyring myself for something I do not value that highly.

Q. So it is ok to steal if you are starving?
A. Absolutely it CAN be. Depending upon circumstances.

When you say that stealing is wrong (bad), it is because it statistically is more bad than good - right?

How'd I do?

Am I sociopath yet?

Hehe, I did admit that my assumption about being anti-social/sociopathic was silly. I have just often been meet with silence or disgust when I've told people that I didn't really perceive e.g. the act of killing as bad as a starting point.

 

[Xander]

This makes me wonder if Fs or SJs, who often seem to easily be able to follow society's norm when it comes to good/bad, are able to do so because they don't ask questions to whether e.g. stealing is bad or because the norm values instictively feels right?

I think I've figured out the noted difference that makes people look at sensors as less likely to think about such things and about them being so accepting.

Sensors tend to be more now focused, yes?
If you are explaining something to an S then they should be following you step for step, yes? (I say should cause I know for a fact that Lori often get's bored half way through and then god knows where she'll end up!!)

So perhaps it's most true to say that Ss tend to accept more than Ns do because they follow the reasoning given as it's given whilst Ns are trying to compare it to past experiences and apply context which tends to highlight differences and prompt for more questions to be asked etc.

[Not specifically on topic but I found it interesting ]

Oh and Jennifer, 1977 to now. Chalkboards are my friend. I hate whiteboards. Oh and if schools worked at any decent rate of technological progression then it'd be OHP wipe or something.

 

[Xander]

Obviously you never had to do it as punishment.

Fuckin'goodytwoshoes.

Of course not. Who's stupid enough to be caught these days?
I mean.. jeez!!

(Long time no speak)

 

[Park]

Personally, I think psychological terms are thrown around with far too startling regularity. With the increase of private therapy for people and diagnoses being thrown around left and right so people can receive medication, many words have made it into the common vernacular that I think used to have more meaning. Many of the these "mental illnesses" should really be reserved for people who cannot function independently in society without treatment.

"Sociopath" happens to be a word I would not apply to general members of the population. I even bristle a bit when I hear it applied to people like Scott Peterson; I would not nearly place him on the same level as a Ted Bundy type. There needs to be some distinction in how words are used, or they lose meaning.

Yeah, Cafe posted this on the INTPC which helped to put things into perspective for me.

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.

 

[Xander]

When you say that stealing is wrong (bad), it is because it statistically is more bad than good - right?

Errm no not really. I just know I'd be pissed off if people did it to me

I guess you could reason that it's the same thing but that's really where I got the direction for my answer.

Hehe, I did admit that my assumption about being anti-social/sociopathic was silly. I have just often been meet with silence or disgust when I've told people that I didn't really perceive e.g. the act of killing as bad as a starting point.

Silly? Nah. I've often thought about if I could pull the trigger. It's got to be a natural progression from noting that whilst everybody else is bursting into tears or rage your standing there with a quizzical expression trying to figure out if they're faking it, if life has suddenly become a parody of sopa operas or if they really are such prima donnas (oh yeah I mean "normal" ).

 

[ptgatsby]

What interests me is that if he can do it anyway then does he validate doing it? If he validates doing it then what is the difference between that and it being right? If the only difference is the period for which the validation stands then it still stands that at that instance it was evaluated as the right thing to do.

No, there is no justification. I make the decision I make with full knowledge of what I am doing and what it will do. The core part of my view on morality is that we make the best decision we can at that moment. It doesn't make, however, the decision right. There are always more optimal solutions that aren't acceptable to us or are not universally good.

By validation, however, I mean redefine morality to suit what was convienent for me. If I decide to go out right now and steal a bunch of stuff, I'm not going to change theft into a conditional statement. I believe morality is objective and universal, except that we are not in a position to actually achieve it. Large scale dynamics makes optimal choices impossible; at the personal level, every choice we make sacrifices some degree of 'rightness'.

Because despite believing the act is wrong, I just want to do it or feel that it is the best of all the crappy options I have available at the time.

That's how I feel as well. To take another analogy, if I was addicted to drugs and decided to steal something... I know that stealing is wrong, but the drive behind it is very strong. Can I really validate it as "I needed money for drugs, so stealing is ok"? I don't see variations on the theme any better.

 

[cafe]

Hehe, I did admit that my assumption about being anti-social/sociopathic was silly. I have just often been meet with silence or disgust when I've told people that I didn't really perceive e.g. the act of killing as bad as a starting point.

How could one assume the act of killing is always wrong? Or maybe I don't see it that way because I'm American?

 

[JivinJeffJones]

When you talk about making cost/benefit analyses in deciding whether or not to be disloyal, lie or break people's trust, are you primarily deciding on what's better for them, what's better for you, or what's better for all concerned? Whose cost and whose benefit are your usual primary concerns?

 

[Xander]

PT, I agree. It's all about whether you focus on the big picture, the guidelines, or if you focus on the exceptions. That much is clear now. You and park are on the same page just reading in opposite directions.

 

[Park]

How could one assume the act of killing is always wrong? Or maybe I don't see it that way because I'm American?

I think most Europeans have the same negative value attacted to killing as they have to stealing etc. on top of that, we don't have the death penalty anymore which may add to that.

JivinJeffJones When you talk about making cost/benefit analyses in deciding whether or not to be disloyal, lie or break people's trust, are you primarily deciding on what's better for them, what's better for you, or what's better for all concerned? Whose cost and whose benefit are your usual primary concerns?

It's a subjective big picture evaluation.

Scenario:
You are shipwrecked on a deserted island with a child. You don't have any food and you don't know if you'll ever get back to civilization again. The child eventually dies of starvation and you either have to eat the corpse or suffer the same destiny. You choose to eat the corpse, survive and is eventually rescued.

When you get back to civilization, the childs parents and loved ones ask you if you know how the child died and if you know where his/her remains are since they would like to travel to the island and bring home the body to give their child a proper funeral.

- Do you tell the parents the truth. The child suffered a long painful death and afterwards his/her remains passed through your digestion system?

- Or do you lie and e.g. tell the parents that the child drowned which is why the corpse can't be found?

 

[JivinJeffJones]

- Do you tell the parents the truth. The child suffered a long painful death and afterwards his/her remains passed through your digestion system?

- Or do you lie and e.g. tell the parents that the child drowned which is why the corpse can't be found?

In this scenario, do you make your decision based on what would be better for the parents to hear/know, or what would be better for you? eg if you decided to lie to them, would you do so to spare them a painful truth, or would you do so perhaps to spare yourself the consequences of telling the truth? Obviously these would not be the only two possible motivations for lying in the scenario you outlined. But would you act primarily for the benefit of them, or you?

I'm not asking this necessarily to determine what would be the most logical or ethical course of action, but I'm interested to hear what the primary underlying value driving your decision-making is.

 

[Park]

In this scenario, do you make your decision based on what would be better for the parents to hear/know, or what would be better for you? eg if you decided to lie to them, would you do so to spare them a painful truth, or would you do so perhaps to spare yourself the consequences of telling the truth?

I would lie and I wouldn't do it to spare myself. In the situation above, I perceive dishonesty as a virtue.

Obviously these would not be the only two possible motivations for lying in the scenario you outlined. But would you act primarily for the benefit of them, or you?

In the situation above, it would be primarily the parents but ideally both. In reality I'm probably not better nor worse than most people. i.e. I can't say I never told a lie with less honorable intentions than in that scenario.

I'm not asking this necessarily to determine what would be the most logical or ethical course of action, but I'm interested to hear what the primary underlying value driving your decision-making is.

Ptgatsby made me aware earlier in the thread that the way I reason is very close to utilitarianism. I.e. "the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome".

 

[cafe]

It's a subjective big picture evaluation.

Scenario:
You are shipwrecked on a deserted island with a child. You don't have any food and you don't know if you'll ever get back to civilization again. The child eventually dies of starvation and you either have to eat the corpse or suffer the same destiny. You choose to eat the corpse, survive and is eventually rescued.

When you get back to civilization, the childs parents and loved ones ask you if you know how the child died and if you know where his/her remains are since they would like to travel to the island and bring home the body to give their child a proper funeral.

- Do you tell the parents the truth. The child suffered a long painful death and afterwards his/her remains passed through your digestion system?

- Or do you lie and e.g. tell the parents that the child drowned which is why the corpse can't be found?

If that isn't a case against honesty being the best policy, I'd like to see what is. Nobody wins with that particular truth.

 

[ptgatsby]

If that isn't a case against honesty being the best policy, I'd like to see what is. Nobody wins with that particular truth.

But is that a case for acting amoral? No intrinsic value to truth...?