Alternative logic systems versus sociopathic traits.

[cafe]

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

It's more of a case of the lesser of two evils, I'd think. It's bad to lie, but it's worse to cause the parents unnecessary grief.

 

[ptgatsby]

It's more of a case of the lesser of two evils, I'd think. It's bad to lie, but it's worse to cause the parents unnecessary grief.

I guess I'm asking if you take Park's approach - everything is relative and the value of an action is only in the ramifications. In this case, you have defined grief as entirely negative and truth as irrelevent (or not as important as grief).

If so, then truth either has no value, except the value it brings as an effect... or truth has some value, meaning you'll tell the truth depending on the scale of grief it would cause.

(
Is this a sliding scale? Or should we always lie to prevent suffering? Do you factor in the likelyhood of being caught? Is that ratio based upon likelyhood of personal suffering and the reversal of their suffering? Do you add a bit of suffering to the "found out lie part and made it worse", or is it balanced?
)

 

[Park]

I guess I'm asking if you take Park's approach - everything is relative and the value of an action is only in the ramifications. In this case, you have defined grief as entirely negative and truth as irrelevent (or not as important as grief).

If so, then truth either has no value, except the value it brings as an effect... or truth has some value, meaning you'll tell the truth depending on the scale of grief it would cause.

(
Is this a sliding scale? Or should we always lie to prevent suffering? Do you factor in the likelyhood of being caught? Is that ratio based upon likelyhood of personal suffering and the reversal of their suffering? Do you add a bit of suffering to the "found out lie part and made it worse", or is it balanced?
)

How about you? You would lie and violate your basic perceptions of honesty=good dishonesty=bad - right?

 

[ptgatsby]

How about you? You would lie and violate your basic perceptions of honesty=good dishonesty=bad - right?

In this story, I'd say the child died and I buried the remains, which I likely would of after eating. I'd simply omit transient information that serves no purpose. The truth they want to hear is what happened their child - dead by starvation, and that is true, so I would tell them.

The problem in these situations is that they are constructs - do you do the worst possible thing or the best possible thing... there are no intermediate steps. In my eyes, everything has infinite possibilities... we work out which will be the best. If I was in that situation, I would do neither. I would present the truth as best I could to ease their grief.

I would likely, however, lie about the details if pushed. Those details aren't relevant to the outcome and only have personal meaning - I would rather that meaning isn't negative for all involved.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

2) You have a very subjective view of morality which isn't all that accepted. You believe that the choices you make are about balancing costs versus benefits... Utilitarian views measure both sides (for example, if it will help the other person lots vs hurt you a little, you'll still hurt yourself a little to help them a lot).

Would I be right in understanding that a sociopath would not hurt themselves a little to help others a lot, and would hurt others a lot in order to help themselves a little?

 

[ptgatsby]

Would I be right in understanding that a sociopath would not hurt themselves a little to help others a lot, and would hurt others a lot in order to help themselves a little?

Hmm.. well, it depends on the sociopath, and it depends on exactly what is being talked about. When we talk about sociopaths, there is a line of deviant behaviour - that is, a lack of caring/empathy... in short, a lack of "golden rules" (tell the truth because you'd want to hear it, treat others like you would want to be treated). In that case, yes, absolutely. In cases where other descriptions (impuslse control, aggression, lack of foresight, responsibility issues) are dominant, I'd say that isn't exactly the case.

But regardless I'd say yes, that's correct, although there may be narrow exceptions. You need all of the traits to some degree, so logically that'd be the case. (The problem here is that the definition begs the question - so you can't diagnose someone as a sociopath then ask if they'd do this... it all just depends on what questions are used to define sociopathy!)

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Regarding questions like "is it wrong to steal if you are starving", these speak to the heart of suffering. A great deal of what one faces when they suffer is being presented with two wrong choices. There is a difference between: identifying that a pure system of moral absolutes does not overlay sufficiently with reality, and disregarding the entire concept of ethical/moral choice and behavior.

Ethical behavior has a lot to do with having the capacity to consider a context outside of self. When all motivations are focused on serving self alone, and to then reckless endangerment of others, then we have a clear lack of morality. When we have the capacity to place ourselves in the context of family and society and calculate the cost/benefits in this larger context, we are then dealing with morality, even if in relative terms.

We can readdress questions like: Is it alright to steal to keep someone else from starving? vs. Is it alright to steal to keep oneself from starving? If the processes for answering these two questions are remarkably different, then the question of amorality is what we could be dealing with. If a person's cost/benefit equations are easily extended to others, than we are dealing with relative moral systems. What do you think?

edit: Pure honest-to-goodness sociopathy is not a rational system of thought. Valuing self at the expense of others and operating in a parasitic manner does not actually turn out a positive cost/benefit outcome. Just as parasites often kill their hosts, so does the sociopath. The truth is that we exist in a context of others. Refusing to identify that context and how it benefits self will not lead to accurate assessments and choices. Others benefit us in ways that go beyond immediate gratification and use. They provide deeper, less tangible benefits as well. Anytime significant, relevant information is disregarded from analysis, we get skewed results. This is the problem with true sociopathic reasoning.

 

[Totenkindly]

It's more of a case of the lesser of two evils, I'd think. It's bad to lie, but it's worse to cause the parents unnecessary grief.

In addition, the emotion attached by the parents to your eating the child [omg, I can't believe I actually had to say that in a post!] is not related to your motivation to doing so.

What I mean is that your intentions were always positive towards the child, and you hated eating the body in order to live, the act was repulsive to you; but what parent could not help but hate you for what you've done?

In this case, you're just compensating to counter residual emotions that would not accurately describe your true feelings of remorse at having to commit this action. If you had killed the child to eat it, then you might have had more personal reasons to lie; but it would have been a more immoral act to do so, because you are obfuscating your true intentions.

You might be sparing yourself some trouble as well as the parents some unnecessary grief, but honestly, it's also a burden to have to carry a secret like that. So it's not really all self-interest at all.

Regarding questions like "is it wrong to steal if you are starving", these speak to the heart of suffering. A great deal of what one faces when they suffer is being presented with two wrong choices. There is a difference between: identifying that a pure system of moral absolutes does not overlay sufficiently with reality, and disregarding the entire concept of ethical/moral choice and behavior.

Mmmm hmmm. I particularly resonate with having to deal with two choices (or more), none of which address in the most ideal way all of the needs inherent in a situation. Those are the hard questions of life, and the more typical situations one will encounter; things are rarely a choice between a good and an evil (or perhaps we do not agonize as much over those sorts of dilemmas).

 

[Park]

When we have the capacity to place ourselves in the context of family and society and calculate the cost/benefits in this larger context, we are then dealing with morality

Yes, it's just that people who have a predetermined negative value for an act often finds it upsetting when you state that to you, the act has a neutral value until carried out in a certain context. It is the context which decides whether the act has a positive or negative value.

It's like they don't hear the last part but only focus on the part where you say, I'm indifferent to e.g. stealing. That statement standing alone makes you a bad character pr. default.

Jennifer Quote:
You might be sparing yourself some trouble as well as the parents some unnecessary grief, but honestly, it's also a burden to have to carry a secret like that. So it's not really all self-interest at all.

Exactly.

 

[cafe]

I guess I'm asking if you take Park's approach - everything is relative and the value of an action is only in the ramifications. In this case, you have defined grief as entirely negative and truth as irrelevent (or not as important as grief).

If so, then truth either has no value, except the value it brings as an effect... or truth has some value, meaning you'll tell the truth depending on the scale of grief it would cause.

(
Is this a sliding scale? Or should we always lie to prevent suffering? Do you factor in the likelyhood of being caught? Is that ratio based upon likelyhood of personal suffering and the reversal of their suffering? Do you add a bit of suffering to the "found out lie part and made it worse", or is it balanced?
)

I'm not sure I have a set system for hard cases like that. I think most of my morality radiates from the principle of not causing harm. Truth has value primarily because lies cause harm. If a lie can cause no harm and might reduce harm, then the smallest possible lie should be told. I would absolutely factor in the likelihood of getting caught because the lie would compound the suffering of the parents if it was discovered.

The hard part is balancing the need for the parents to have their child's remains so they could have some closure against the pain of knowing what happened to their child and their child's body. Oh man, now I'm feeling guilty for letting the kids starve I should have at least poked myself with sticks or rocks until I bled and given the child my blood to drink like the Mongols drank the blood of their horses. How can the adult be alive and let the child starve?

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Yes, it's just that people who have a predetermined negative value for an act often finds it upsetting when you state that to you, the act has a neutral value until carried out in a certain context. It is the context which decides whether the act has a positive or negative value.

It's like they don't hear the last part but only focus on the part where you say, I'm indifferent to e.g. stealing. That statement standing alone makes you a bad character pr. default.

I guess the irony of it is that most people do not follow their preset moral codes under all circumstances. What you describe is actually more honest in many cases. For most issues, i go back to a philosophy of balance. When someone is set into a mold in which stealing is wrong in every plausible scenario, then if and when they do face their two wrong choices, they will have difficulty recovering from the guilt and the deep fractures it causes in their world view.

People find security in boundaries, security, and predictability. I have found those values actually masquerade for much of what is described as moral. People may say "stealing is always wrong". That implies that they will never be in a situation to challenge that. It means life is safe. They know exactly how to behave and choose, and they will never have to feel guilt unless they clearly make a wrong choice. Sometimes it has nothing to do with stealing, but everything to do with security. The types of issues you raise would shake many people's assumptions, so they will resist it. It's easier to just place your relativist ideas, and possibly you, outside their world view and understanding, rather than trying to reconcile what you might mean, and how honest reasoning could actually be behind it. Dismissal is another way of expressing predictability and security.

 

[Park]

I guess the irony of it is that most people do not follow their preset moral codes under all circumstances.

LOL good post toonia and very true, it's not like any moral code (alternative or not) will prevent people from fucking up deliberately from time to time.

What you describe is actually more honest in many cases. For most issues, i go back to a philosophy of balance. When someone is set into a mold in which stealing is wrong in every plausible scenario, then if and when they do face their two wrong choices, they will have difficulty recovering from the guilt and the deep fractures it causes in their world view.

Exactly, that's my objection against placing a value on an act taken out of context. In WW2, some Danes would hide Judes and other refugees wanted by the Germans in their houses because if caught, they would be send off to concentration camp for elimination. If they hadn't been willing to lie, cheat or if nessecary kill when the Germans forces came looking for people, it would make little sense hiding the refugees in the first place.

People find security in boundaries, security, and predictability. I have found those values actually masquerade for much of what is described as moral. People may say "stealing is always wrong". That implies that they will never be in a situation to challenge that. It means life is safe. They know exactly how to behave and choose, and they will never have to feel guilt unless they clearly make a wrong choice. Sometimes it has nothing to do with stealing, but everything to do with security.

Yes, I think you hit the jackpot. The WW2 scenario above becomes redicurless if your starting point is "I'll hide refugees in my house but if asked directly, I wohn't lie about it". It means that eventhough you and your family will end up in concentration camp togeather with the Judes and the refugess you'r hiding, you did a good thing because when asked "you told the truth" i.e. you followed your set of rules which ascribe a positive value to honesty and as such "your hands are clean". I've experienced people struggle with scenarios a lot less extreme due to fixed perceptions of good and bad. It's like they are desperetly trying to apply a fixed set of rules in a context where doing so has little to no value.

The types of issues you raise would shake many people's assumptions, so they will resist it. It's easier to just place your relativist ideas, and possibly you, outside their world view and understanding, rather than trying to reconcile what you might mean, and how honest reasoning could actually be behind it. Dismissal is another way of expressing predictability and security.

Heh, I like that presentation much better than my own anti-social worries.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yes, I think you hit the jackpot. The WW2 scenario above becomes ridiculous if your starting point is "I'll hide refugees in my house but if asked directly, I won't lie about it". It means that even though you and your family will end up in concentration camp together with the Judes and the refugees you're hiding, you did a good thing because when asked "you told the truth" i.e. you followed your set of rules which ascribe a positive value to honesty and as such "your hands are clean". I've experienced people struggle with scenarios a lot less extreme due to fixed perceptions of good and bad. It's like they are desperately trying to apply a fixed set of rules in a context where doing so has little to no value.

What is funny is that the Bible has at least one story where someone makes the same decision and is praised for it:

1 Then Joshua son of Nun secretly sent two spies from Shittim. "Go, look over the land," he said, "especially Jericho." So they went and entered the house of a prostitute [a] named Rahab and stayed there.

2 The king of Jericho was told, "Look! Some of the Israelites have come here tonight to spy out the land." 3 So the king of Jericho sent this message to Rahab: "Bring out the men who came to you and entered your house, because they have come to spy out the whole land."

4 But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. She said, "Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they had come from. 5 At dusk, when it was time to close the city gate, the men left. I don't know which way they went. Go after them quickly. You may catch up with them." 6 (But she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them under the stalks of flax she had laid out on the roof.) 7 So the men set out in pursuit of the spies on the road that leads to the fords of the Jordan, and as soon as the pursuers had gone out, the gate was shut.

Rahab is later claimed to be a "godly woman" for her decision... essentially because she lied for the "right team." (If she had lied for the opposite side, I suppose she would have been castigated.) But it's often people quoting the Bible who refuse to lie, even when it's in service to a good cause.

I dunno. It seems even the Biblical record sees distinctions here.

 

[cafe]

What is funny is that the Bible has at least one story where someone makes the same decision and is praised for it:



Rahab is later claimed to be a "godly woman" for her decision... essentially because she lied for the "right team." (If she had lied for the opposite side, I suppose she would have been castigated.) But it's often people quoting the Bible who refuse to lie, even when it's in service to a good cause.

I dunno. It seems even the Biblical record sees distinctions here.

If I remember right, in Exodus, the Hebrew midwives lied to the Egyptians when they were ordered to kill all the baby boys they delivered, too. And they were rewarded for it, I believe by God.

 

[Totenkindly]

If I remember right, in Exodus, the Hebrew midwives lied to the Egyptians when they were ordered to kill all the baby boys they delivered, too. And they were rewarded for it, I believe by God.

Uh huh.

15 The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah, 16 "When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live." 17 The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live. 18 Then the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, "Why have you done this? Why have you let the boys live?"

19 The midwives answered Pharaoh, "Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives arrive."

20 So God was kind to the midwives and the people increased and became even more numerous. 21 And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own.

 

[Xander]

Exactly, that's my objection against placing a value on an act taken out of context. In WW2, some Danes would hide Judes and other refugees wanted by the Germans in their houses because if caught, they would be send off to concentration camp for elimination. If they hadn't been willing to lie, cheat or if nessecary kill when the Germans forces came looking for people, it would make little sense hiding the refugees in the first place.

There has to be some measure of importance in your morals though. Shielding those in need in my book comes way higher up my list of important things to try and do than being honest does... honestly

I think the answer to this lies in the definition of 'rule'.

Personally I always objected to rules as too constrictive and inflexible. I preferred the idea of guidelines until I realised that it was just a euphemism for rules that were poorly defined and rigidly executed. Recently however it has occurred that rules are not rules, they are only steadfast and resolute because people will fortify them to be so and expand them to fill gaps which they are not designed to cover (look at legal issues for excellent examples). People bend rules and as such the rules cannot be considered as rigid. Rules are merely those things which are set down to build upon like foundations for a house. They are not infallible, never were, just adequate for the purposes intended. This is not a problem as long as those original parameters are kept in mind, however people all too quickly forget such parameters and hence you end up with irrelevant rules.

This same problem is the one which you have identified with peoples moral codes. They forget the parameters and hence their morals become irrelevant.

 

[wildcat]

I've notished that the logic systems of some types seems to differ a lot more from society norm than value systems does in generel. In specific, alternative logic systems seems to be a more common phenonomen among NTs and STPs than other types. As a result, I feared, for a period of time that I was an anti-social persona. Silly perhaps but not when you look at how easy it is to confuse an alternative logic system with anti-social/sociopathic traits. And while the acts carried out by a anti-social person and a person with an alternative logic system may look similar – there are clear distinctions. A person with an alternative logicsystem just acts in accordence with an alternative set of rules (it is still rules though) where as the anti-social person have neither a functional value system or logic system to base their actions on and as such does not have the same limitations when it comes to satisfy desires/urges or act on impulses.

In this "Are You A Sociopath?" ladies magazine test, I ended up at 44% and were described like this: You're not a sociopath, but you're very prone to antisocial behavior. Other people's opinions matter little to you. You live your own fringe life - for better or worse.

The test is obviously insufficient when it comes to diagnose a sociopath but the questions reflects very well society's perceptions of bad character traits. However, I'm positive that a person with an alternative logic system much more extreme than mine could reach a much much higher score and still fit the frames of a non-criminal, relatively social, relatively harmless, lovable, productive and good citizen.

I've lined up some of the questions I replied yes to and tried to explain what lies behind my answers:

You don't have a problem lying to get what you want.
To me it's a matter of cost/benefit. To me, honesty can be a virtue but so can dishonesty. They are just opposites on a scale and where I place myself depends on the situation.

You have a love/hate relationship with your parents.
I love my parents but isn't blind to the fact that I carry around younger versions of myself who feels differently.

It's hard for you to be loyal.
Again, cost/benefit.

You don't think in terms of "right" and "wrong."
Not when it comes to human behaviour.

It's hard for you to empathize with people's problems.
I answered *no* to this, just wanted to comment that a well-functioning Fe is not uncommon for a sociopath Ted Bundy was a good example.

You break people's trust
Again, cost/benefit.

You are very good at manipulating people and situations.
Yes, but skill does not equal will.

You see people as your pawns.
Yes, and at the same time I see myself as other peoples pawn. I use and let myself be used – what's wrong with that anyway?

In other words, I am from time to time deliberately a lier, disloyal, untrustworthy and a person who uses other people for my own benefit but I still consider myself to fit the methaphor profile of a good citizen.

Well, as you say: So called "antisocial behaviour" falls in two entirely distinct categories.

A good post.

It is time to clear the issue.
There has been a lot of misunderstanding about the subject.
A semantic confusion only.

 

[wildcat]

ptGatsby said to lie is wrong- and at the same time he made it clear this unfortunate circumstance does not hinder him from lying (should the need arise).

Apropos lying is not about the semantics of lying.

It is about the motive alone.

Hence ptGatsby was right when he was wrong.

 

[wildcat]

There has to be some measure of importance in your morals though. Shielding those in need in my book comes way higher up my list of important things to try and do than being honest does... honestly

I think the answer to this lies in the definition of 'rule'.

Personally I always objected to rules as too constrictive and inflexible. I preferred the idea of guidelines until I realised that it was just a euphemism for rules that were poorly defined and rigidly executed. Recently however it has occurred that rules are not rules, they are only steadfast and resolute because people will fortify them to be so and expand them to fill gaps which they are not designed to cover (look at legal issues for excellent examples). People bend rules and as such the rules cannot be considered as rigid. Rules are merely those things which are set down to build upon like foundations for a house. They are not infallible, never were, just adequate for the purposes intended. This is not a problem as long as those original parameters are kept in mind, however people all too quickly forget such parameters and hence you end up with irrelevant rules.

This same problem is the one which you have identified with peoples moral codes. They forget the parameters and hence their morals become irrelevant.

Exactly.

Well said.

 

[Xander]

Exactly.

Well said.

I think you've got to be the only person who ever reckons I've presented something well. We must be on the same frequency or something.