Psychopathy

This is correct. Psychopathy is a state of mind. It is not solely based upon actions.

I didn't say it was. They're psychopaths either way. But without action that just makes them dicks. We cannot pre-emptively imprison someone because we think they're going to do something, unless it's imminent and manifest...

I am now known as Flyboy.

The ability to empathize with other's and put yourselves in their shoes is essential to making the world a better place in my opinion. Its not the end-all-be-all, but without that they're dangerously unattached to humanity, and care only for themselves.

Also, Savage? Have you ever taken that test, or do you think you could be considered a psychopath? I want to make it clear I'm not insulting you or anything such as that, I just think you may show some....psychopathic tendencies? Again, not an insult and I'm not looking to demonize you at all. I'm simply curious. Oh god there's no way for me to say this without feeling like a peace of shit

edited 13th Sep '11 3:26:42 PM by ViralLamb

Power corrupts. Knowledge is Power. Study hard. Be evil.

I wasn't saying we should. I was just Rules Lawyering your definition of psychopath.

Technically speaking, it is impossible for a psychopath not to betray their nature with actions in some shape or form. While this usually isn't through some sort of criminal activity (at least one they wouldn't be able to get away with easily), they're basically a Real Life Uncanny Valley: something about them seems "off" and the more you're around them, the more you notice that their outward persona is fake.

Only the criminal actions really matter in this context, however...

I am now known as Flyboy.

I agree with , and , I've actually heard that psychopaths can be extremely charismatic and charming because they are very, very good at perceiving and imitating other people's emotions.

As for why we should empathise with others, it's a biological instinct; most of us don't get a choice in the matter. There's also the point that if you are, at least openly, a complete dick to everyone, they're not going to feel very well-disposed towards you.

edited 13th Sep '11 11:09:44 PM by cityofmist

Scepticism and doubt lead to study and investigation, and investigation is the beginning of wisdom. - Clarence Darrow

Does anyone remember when people were arguing that psychopaths in the corporate world were a good thing, because their ruthlessness made them more effective? (This was before Enron.)

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

And thusly, we see why people typically care about others' feelings. Because it's bally awkward at best when they don't.

Proud member of the IAA What's the point of being grown up if you can't act childish?

From the previous page:

It's a good thing that the analogy is not meant to be taken literally, because there is one big difference between these two cases: a homosexual is not, in general, any more likely to be a danger to himself or to others than an heterosexual.

A better comparison, I think, would be: suppose that we had some way to identify people with deep-seated pedophilic tendencies. Then, would be justified in asking them to undergo counseling in order to help them out of their problem, and to put them under surveillance if they refuse?

I think that we would — after all, we would not only protect innocent third parties, but we would be protecting the subjects themselves from the risk of ending up doing something that they would have to regret. It'd be win/win, really.

edited 14th Sep '11 4:52:06 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

People with paedophilic tendencies, I might give compulsory counselling. I still wouldn't put them under constant surveillance. Once you start taking away the privacy of groups like paedophiles and psychopaths because of potential damage they could do, rather than any damage they have done, where are you going to go from there? If we don't allow rights like privacy and innocent-until-proven-guilty to everyone, sooner or later no one will have them.

Scepticism and doubt lead to study and investigation, and investigation is the beginning of wisdom. - Clarence Darrow

So you are fine with psycopaths being forced to get counselling, but not watching them 24/7, correct?

edited 14th Sep '11 8:59:40 AM by JosefBugman

I hadn't considered the possibility of counselling for psychopaths, but that might actually be a good idea. Maybe just occasional counselling sessions to ensure that they weren't doing anything inadvisable.

If compulsory counselling for psychopaths would be effective, then no, I wouldn't consider it a human rights infringement.

Scepticism and doubt lead to study and investigation, and investigation is the beginning of wisdom. - Clarence Darrow

I didn't mean that homosexuality was harmful at all. That said, I feel really dumb for not seeing this much better analogy. Touche, touche.

I am now known as Flyboy.

When people are diagnosed with, say, schizophrenia, they can in fact be sent to mental hospitals involuntarily if they can be proven to pose a danger to themselves or others.

Compared to that, mere monitoring and forced counselling doesn't seem all that onerous. And is it really that bad to be forced to go to counselling? Provided you aren't overly persecuted for having genetic conditions, it strikes me as a fair thing for society to ask.

If you had a bunch of people with genetic precursors for cancer, would it be so terrible to force them to take cancer screening tests every year? If the cost to society is much much lower than letting 80% of them develop cancer and detect it that much later, it doesn't seem all that unreasonable.

I still don't understand the unreasonable hate-on people have for being forced or coerced to do things. Hello! That happens just about every single day, to some degree or another. You're already being forced to do things, why not mutually beneficial things?

edited 14th Sep '11 9:10:55 PM by deathjavu

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

... Whoa. It's really difficult to say. Locking all psychopaths away because they might hurt somebody, even if not all of them act on their impulses? My first reaction was to think how utterly inhumane and unfair that would be. That and it's a slippery slope. If we imprison psychopaths, who's to say we wouldn't start on people with, say, addictive personalities or anger issues? But then again, if we waited until they actually commited crimes, would that be too little too late?

Either way, innocent people suffer. Even a psychopath is technically innocent if they haven't hurt anyone, and it just... wouldn't be right to take away their freedom like that.

Being a tad obsessed with trying to Take a Third Option whenever possible, I'd say compulsory counselling (and maybe as a last resort, temporary stays in mental hospitals) might be the best choice. Research into a cure would also help, because even if it would be wrong to force people with mental disorders to change, at least that way they'd be able to choose to get better if they wanted to.

edited 15th Sep '11 2:14:30 PM by Xandriel

What's the point in giving up when you know you'll never stop anyway?

This is the big part you missed.

I don't care what you think of them, unless they've done wrong you can't force them to do anything, really. What right do you have to do that? Answer: none.

I am now known as Flyboy.

No one has any inherent rights save for those we make up and arbitrarily say we have.

edited 15th Sep '11 2:56:17 PM by ViralLamb

Power corrupts. Knowledge is Power. Study hard. Be evil.

Yes.

However, I believe people should have the right to not be forced to do things because your crystal ball morality says it will end up badly later on. There's a stark difference between "imminently harmful" and "possibly, maybe, ok, we're shooting in the dark."

Of course, that's not perfect, but I'd say that, in this case, the latter is what's driving this opinion, not the former.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Indeed.

I just realized my previous comment served no purpose other than to vent my frustration due to people using the phrase "you don't have the right" and such, so my apologies for contributing nothing to the discussion at all xD

Edit: Ok I'll try contributing now: its said that one in a hundred people are a psychopath, so roughly 1% percent of the population is said to be psychopaths?

edited 15th Sep '11 3:09:00 PM by ViralLamb

Power corrupts. Knowledge is Power. Study hard. Be evil.

I've actually debated this. I once wrote a paper on this before that offended a lot of people in an ethics class about it. I based it mainly on Philip K. Dick stories (notably Blade Runner and Minority Report). I felt and still feel that psychopaths are sub-human abominations. They are horrible monsters in human skin.

As for imprisoning/executing them if we could find them with out any doubt, but not cure them? Yes. i'd be for it. Put, it this way. they aren't redeemable. They ruin society by praying on our compassion and other people that have made mistake and can become better suffer for it.

I see it as cause and effect. Psychopaths aren't bad things because they do bad things. They do bad things because they're bad people. They aren't an oppressed minority being prosecuted. These are people thar hurt anyone to get what they want. They need to be put down like a predator with rabbies.

Oh, and to elaborate. My beliefs are based on if there were an infallible test. Like a device that could scan and identify someone without doubt. Also, under the belief that they could never be cured. Also, yes most psychopaths aren't serial killers. Those are typically anti-social sadistic psychopaths that do that. I still think any Psychopath is danger though in various ways.

Funny thought . . . does anyone have statistics for what percentage of psychopaths never commit a serious crime?

edited 16th Sep '11 12:41:03 AM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Does not feel emotion =/= bad person. Does not feel emotion =/= 'praying on our compassion'. Does not feel emotion =/= subhuman abomination.

Since your entire argument is based on that, I'm not going to debate the rest of it.

@Viral Lamb, I'm also a proponent of the idea that human rights are ascribed by society and instincts, and don't come from any objective morality. However, I think that the semi-arbitrary human rights we say everyone needs are necessary for our society to function, and for our society to function in any kind of equal, non-dystopian way we need to ensure that everyone has them.

@feotakahari, I did some googling, and came up with: it's estimated that 0.6% of the British population are psychopaths. 0.15% of the British population is in prison. It's also estimated that 25-40% of the prison population are psychopaths. Thus (correct my spurious maths if necessary) very roughly 0.05% of the British population are psychopaths who are in prison, which means around one in twelve psychopaths in Britain are in prison.

I'm sorry for the extreme roughness of the estimate, and I'm aware that 'in prison' is not the same as 'has at some point committed a violent crime', and I'm aware that British crime rates are very different to those in the US in various other countries, but it was the best Google and I could do.

edited 16th Sep '11 8:56:31 AM by cityofmist

Scepticism and doubt lead to study and investigation, and investigation is the beginning of wisdom. - Clarence Darrow

It's typically believed that 4% of of the US populace are Psychopaths.

Also people seem to object to condemning psychopaths before they ever commit crimes. Well laws are designed to stop people from committing worse crimes be prosecuting victimless crimes. Best example laws against hard drugs. A person that a heroine addict is considered dangerous because their drug use might lead them to committing violent crimes to fund their drug dependency.