Re:Morality, Compassion and the Sociopath
by RevRal on Saturday November 21, 2009 @10:27PM
(#955359)
Along the same lines, I like:
Whether good or evil, the morality of a sociopath is something he or she takes responsibility for.
Then later:
More people taking individual moral responsibility is a good thing.
Re:Morality, Compassion and the Sociopath
by Daishiman on Sunday November 22, 2009 @02:20AM
(#955515)
Sociopaths do not assume responsibility for anything they do. They absolve themselves of the consequences because one of the definitions of a sociopath is that he has no regard or compassion for other beings.
To a sociopath there is no other justice other than whichever favors him the most. The blogger in question has evidently read little to no literature on the subject.
It is interesting to note that over a fourth of all convicts display sociopathic characteristics, among them a complete lack of remorse for their actions.
You have to read the first article in the series to get his definitions, sociopath, loser and clueless have specific meanings in this context.
I agree that player, pawn and spectator would have been better.
Here is another excellent one and I think a big part of why he is defining "sociopath" in amoral terms (because no matter your traits, they can be used for good or evil):
If the clueless often go “evil” in the “we were only following orders” mode, losers often go “evil” in bystander mode,
So yes, this entire edifice I am constructing is a determinedly amoral one. Hitler would count as a sociopath in this sense, but so would Gandhi and Martin Luther King.