But why do they have the temptation to do evil in the first place? Why don’t they all choose to be good? Why do we even need that “natural armor†to keep us from evil?
This debate can go on for very long, since it seems to have turned theological. I just don’t believe people are born for a reason. Life happens because it can. To me, that’s the beauty of nature: its complete chaos and unpredictability. It has no plan or motive, it just is, and we can only study what is the cause behind a natural phenomenon.
But I certainly can’t disprove Divine Determinism, and won’t try, so as we are stuck, I propose we move on here, if it’s ok with you?
Again, you say “this is utter nonsense†without justification. Why can’t psychopathy be organic, if schizophrenia and autism are? It all about how much empathy an individual can feel, and the empathy center is situated in the brain.
Actually not all mothers (and fathers) fall in love with their babies at first sight, even though most of them do. These women aren’t necessarily diagnosticated with mental illness. But I suppose you’ll answer they must be ill anyway.
Whatever, here again you say all babies are born programmed to love and be loved, and would never turn bad if that need is nurtured, but this is the whole point of our discussion. I think it is possible that some people are not that way.
This is the natural process, you say, but nature is imperfect, so there
is room for “my inherent evil theoryâ€. Though I must note that I’m not entirely comfortable with using the word “evil†here, which has connotations I don’t like very much, but if you insist I suppose it doesn’t really matter in the end.
Ah. So everyone is born without empathy, but motherly love teaches it to us, and so neglected children never know it? Is that it?
Anyway, here again you make a statement without justifying it. I see no reason why empathy can’t be something inherent to the personality (by which I mean people are either born with it or born without it). Actually, there *must* be something about it that is inherent, making it more or less receptive to the environment.
And don’t forget, I’m not arguing environment doesn’t have an impact on the child’s mental health, I am merely questioning your assumption that people can’t be born psychopaths (lacking that thing which permits us to feel empathy toward others).
The problem with your reasoning that I’m trying to point out is that you seem stuck in a circle. You start with a premise that isn’t a universal truth, and then build your whole argument upon it, stating the same thing again and again, getting to a conclusion, and then using that conclusion to justify your premise. This is getting us nowhere.
Fact is, it is very difficult to *prove* there has been no abuse or neglect in an antisocial person’s early years. We can just point out to cases where there is absolutely no reason to think otherwise, and these won’t satisfy you.
But you can’t prove such abuse has occurred in every such case either. So I think the possibility that these people are simply born without empathy exists and must be considered.
Generally, I think it would be dangerous to just
assume abuse has occurred each time a psychopath is found, without proof, because it puts his/her family (the parents above all) in such a damning position.
This is the link I posted earlier:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/m...ear-old-a-psychopath.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
It is about a young psychopathic boy, Michael, raised in what seems to be a very healthy environment.
So you concede it is a possibility that some people are born without the possibility to be empathetic, but you still think this isn’t the case with psychopath because something else causes their lack of empathy? Why?
1) Psychopaths are not all violent. Actually if you believe some statistics, we all should have a psychopath amongst our general acquaintances. It could even be your boyfriend, only you won’t know it because they spend their whole life learning how to hide it from society.
2) It hasn’t been proven that psychopaths that turn out violent necessarily come from unhealthy environments. Again, why should we justify their terrible acts with a bad childhood even without proof? It may be so, perhaps they have all been awfully abused and we just don’t know it. But then it may be not, perhaps it was just the way they are. If they lack empathy for their victim, they won’t feel guilty about what they are doing to them, so this isn’t going to hold them back. Didn’t Ted Bundy say something about liking the sensation of power it gave him? I remember him saying in a quote that he was feeling like God in those moments when he was looking at his victim’s eyes and could see the fear there, and then watch as life leave them. Something like that.
3) “Antisocial†isn’t necessarily “wanting to inflict harmâ€.
4)
“It is a fallacy to assume that lacking empathy makes a psychopath, just because psychopaths lack empathy†Even if lacking empathy isn’t enough to make a psychopath, those other traits can also be inherent, which is the whole point.
So yeah, I think it is possible that some people are born without natural empathy and without ways of growing out some. These people would be psychopathic (depending on your definition), though not necessarily violent ones.
Both idea are depressing, there is really no point in finding out which is saddest.