Who are the proper subjects of moral consideration?

@MattDavis,

In other words this strategy mirrors that of the utilitarianism approach. And when you said empathy is an effective "strategy" for sociopath, that is similar to saying water is an effect strategy to quench a thirst. Thank you Katz for stating the obvious. Now the question is how can one permeate empathy in an object that lacks empathy - a sociopath.

2 Replies

@aspvenom,

Good q.

0 Replies

@aspvenom,

Quote:

One thing, that I am curious about is whether any ones faith , or religion has ever been changed by a brain injury (I mean devoted types like Buddhist Monks , Rabbis, hardcore atheists, etc).

That's an interesting question. I don't know the answer. Have you searched for it?

1 Reply

@aspvenom,

As is my very limited, and at this point speculative view (ie probably not the same that could/would be said of Dr. Katz himself)

Yes, the strategy of the hypothetical sociopath mirrors a utilitarian approach.
In fact, it IS the utilitarian approach with the sole value starting as personal "wellbeing" (which at this point, I admit, I have not rigidly defined).
The possibility that I find very interesting is that you could potentially arrive at the same conclusions in assigning value(in the way the term is conventionally used in ethical philosophy), as would be derived from starting at a position which a priori value is placed outside of the self.

Quote:

...that is similar to saying water is an effect strategy to quench a thirst. Thank you Katz for stating the obvious.

If you are using me as a straw man for a concept, that I have repeatedly stated I have only a limited and recent familiarity with, then I don't appreciate being so used. Mad

I will not be a means to your ends. Laughing

I really do enjoy engaging with you, so I hope you don't take (at least permanent) offense to the above. Very Happy

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

This is how you might convince a sociopath to behave with empathy.

I agree with everything you said before this quote. But sociopath's are not able to use reason to observe themselves. If they could, they would not be a sociopath.

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

BTW : I call first dibs on the pun relating my bolded use of "used" as it relates to utilitarianism.

0 Replies

@Lola,

Thanks Lola.

Definitely a fair point. Smile

I defer to you to know much more than I about the characteristics and abilities of those with clinical sociopathy.

Apologetic:
In my first response to Dr. Katz http://able2know.org/topic/207752-14#post-5255410
this,
sociopath as a metaphor for a ["perfectly" rational utilitarian with all value placed upon the self]
Was, at least I hope, more clearly shown to be just a metaphor.

Acknowledgement:
The post you are referencing was my attempt to eliminate lingo and distil to layman's terms at RL's request. I was obviously lacking in my attempt.

Thanks, as always evidenced from the posts I have seen, for your civility and insight. Very Happy

1 Reply

@aspvenom,

Asp, Norman Doidge, M.D. has done some interesting neuroscience research. He's written an interesting book The Brain That Changes Itself abouot neuroplasticity. Doidge is a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst.

1 Reply

@Lola,

Lolaessense wrote:

Quote:
One thing, that I am curious about is whether any ones faith , or religion has ever been changed by a brain injury (I mean devoted types like Buddhist Monks , Rabbis, hardcore atheists, etc).

That's an interesting question. I don't know the answer. Have you searched for it?

I recall when watching this lecture, that Slovaj Zizek alludes to studies showing a drug administered that can mimic the effects of a "transcendental" state. In the sense that they appear indistinguishable subjectively, and indistinguishable objectively. At the time I didn't catch if he actually gave any clue as to what studies he was actually alluding to.
Zizek is known for some pretty hyperbolic statements, so at the time I didn't bother looking up the reference (if any).
[no offense intended for communism by the criticism of Zizek]

If I'm feeling up to it, I might try to divine some actual scientific evidence from the clues in the video, but I make no promises toward that end.
Very Happy

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

In my first response to Dr. Katz

Dr. Katz?

2 Replies

@Lola,

OK, never mind. I found Dr. Katz. I understand now. Ignore my question.

2 Replies

@Lola,

Dr. Katz = Martin C. Katz, PhD = deepthot = http://able2know.org/user/deepthot/
The (for the most part) topic at hand is an ethical philosophy theory he is working on.
Several links have been provided to some papers authored/coauthored by him.
The only one I have yet read is http://www.hartmaninstitute.org/Portals/0/Documents/Katz,HOWTHESCIENCEOFETHICS...pdf

Which began this new topic at hand.
Starting (in the A2K-verse) at: http://able2know.org/topic/207752-11#post-5254713

0 Replies

@Lola,

too late

0 Replies

@Lola,

My bias, if you have not already inferred, is that this theory could be used as a self-validation of my veganism.
The strongest arguments (at least in my opinion) for veganism come from:
1. An appeal to an extension of value to include animals along with a utilitarian view of how our behavior impacts these animals. (Peter Singer, et. al)
2. An appeal to an extention of empathy and the notion of "Not using someone as something." Specifically not using animals as things, to do with as we please. (Kant, et. al)

The personal appeal for me is that a reconciliation of these 2 conflicting theories of morality, would not make me a hypocrite in using both.

0 Replies

@aspvenom,

Quote:

One thing, that I am curious about is whether any ones faith , or religion has ever been changed by a brain injury (I mean devoted types like Buddhist Monks , Rabbis, hardcore atheists, etc).

I have seen hard core atheists state that they change at times because of schizophrenia. Some have stated that when they did not take their medicine that they thought that they were in the presence of God and sometimes they thought that they were God.
I would have to say yes that your brain does make "you" who you are and what you are going to believe. if your brain changes in all the right or wrong place then you will also change but isn't that elementary?

If you were not so critical about what many of the neuroscientists all seem to agree on "that I share with you, I think I could see you in a different light.

2 Replies

@aspvenom,

Quote:

Can't an empathetic individuals act and do what a sociopath or a psychopath will? Can you really be in the same classification of "they just are who they are?

A person who has the ability to be empathic can also behave in antisocial ways at times
I see sociopathy as being gray rather than being black and white .
I see it similar to the way I see other senses. "example you have a completely blind person at one end of the spectrum and a person who has no vision problems at the other end, in the middle you have people with all sorts of differences nearsighted, farsighted, colorblind and all requiring different prescriptions because they are all different.
I see a very sociopathic person at one end of the spectrum and a very empathic person at the other end.

Quote:

Can't science advance to a level where surgery or controlled surgical trauma fix a sociopath?

I am not sure to what degree surgery can make a difference but I have seen where removing tumors helped in some cases but that is not going to fix all the problems.
I think that sociopaths are just a part of nature that we will have to find ways of dealing with. They too are people and deserve to live a life but not a life that makes another life miserable.

1 Reply

@Lola,

That's true from brain biological studies. They have found the brain of sociopaths different from "normal." I've read about them many decades ago, but found this link that shows the same studies. http://www.sociopathworld.com/2012/05/psychopath-brains-differ-even-from-aspd.html

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Good one.
I have a pretty thick skin, so no offense taken. Razz

Now if only I didn't have ADD that limits my patience level. I don't like to stay on one topic for too long if I loose interest by people like RL who instead of participating in an actual discussion, resort to fallacy ad hominems right and left for no valid reason other than to put the other person down. Irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and certainly distracting enough for me to loose interest in the subject matter.

0 Replies

@Lola,

Thanks for sharing the book. I'll probably get to finishing that book, or for any book of interest for that matter, in the summer.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Thanks for sharing that.

It seems you have settled down from you unreasonable **** throwing for now.
Let me be clear, I don't care what light you see me in. Why does it matter? So you can use ad hominem fallacy in discussions with me?
And why can't I positively critique someone's presentation of topics? I am haven't closed my ears to Engleman now have I? I am not necessarily finding unreasonable or fallacious faults, I am just exploring the different sides and bringing into light the doubts surrounding the issue at hand here.

0 Replies

Who are the proper subjects of moral consideration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know