Who are the proper subjects of moral consideration?

@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 certainly haven't closed my ears to Engleman now have I? And I am not 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

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

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.

So what level should the minimum threshold of deviation be set, in your opinion, to label someone a sociopath?

2 Replies

@aspvenom,

I'm not sure there are ways to measure levels of sociopathy. Scans on brains of sociopaths have shown that they "lack conscience and ability to feel remorse." They have no reaction to violence or abusive behavior.

Here's the diagnosis of sociopaths and normal people from brain scans.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/407738/what-can-neuroscience-tell-us-about-evil/

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

That's an interesting blurb, c i. Technology in the field of Neuroscience is providing many answers to questions we thought couldn't be answered with so much data. However, the questions of how a sociopath's brain came to be this way and whether or not the condition can be successfully treated (whether the sociopathic brain can heal itself) are still unanswered.

It has long been known that sociopaths have a poor prognosis. But whether or not there are ways to intervene and help the sociopath experience emotion and empathy which would activate the amygdala and those portions of the frontal cortex that regulate impulse control, etc., is still not known. I can say that, as far as I know, there are no methods so far. I did hear on the radio, NPR I think, several years ago that there was some research in which sociopaths were given LSD to help them experience love. But I haven't heard anything about it since.

Psychosis is different from Sociopathy. Psychosis can respond to medication and restore mental health. There's no medicine that I know of that makes a sociopath get better.

Now to bring it back to the topic. Are sociopaths capable of moral consideration. No. But since they, like infants are a member of the class of beings that can, they therefore deserve moral consideration from other human beings.

2 Replies

@Lola,

You wrote,

Quote:

Now to bring it back to the topic. Are sociopaths capable of moral consideration. No. But since they, like infants are a member of the class of beings that can, they therefore deserve moral consideration from other human beings.

I agree. I remember a study done in a Russian orphanage (many decades ago)where the children never received hugging or touch by other humans while they lay in their cribs or beds. They had the same symptoms of sociopaths, but how can anyone blame them for their condition?

Scientists should continue to study these anti-social behaviors to find cures for them; that's the only "right" thing to do. As with many diseases, it's not the patient's fault.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

where the children never received hugging or touch by other humans while they lay in their cribs or beds. They had the same symptoms of sociopaths, but how can anyone blame them for their condition?

I am not saying that CI is wrong but I heard differently, I heard that if a baby does not receive human contact they will die. I am not saying this is empirically true but the person I heard say it knows much more than I do about this subject unless he is wrong of course.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

As with many diseases, it's not the patient's fault.

It is nice to hear you say this but when it comes to me being logical according to your subjective opinion you want to hold me accountable? Why?

0 Replies

@Lola,

Lola wrote:

But since they, like infants are a member of the class of beings that can, they therefore deserve moral consideration from other human beings.

My opinion at this point is yes.
So long as a sociopath is capable of suffering,
then a sociopath is a proper object of moral (and ethical) consideration.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

You wrote,

Quote:

So long as a sociopath is capable of suffering,

.

I disagree; suffering should not be a criteria for treatment.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

I am not saying that CI is wrong but I heard differently, I heard that if a baby does not receive human contact they will die. I am not saying this is empirically true but the person I heard say it knows much more than I do about this subject unless he is wrong of course.

rl,

This is true for some infants. Many develop a condition called "failure to thrive." But not all. Some grow up with significant emotional handicaps, sociopathy being the most severe. Severe physical and emotional abuse can also leave the same result. In any case, since the damage seems to be either genetic or inflicted on a child at such an early age, it's hard to see why anyone thinks they can learn from reason, much less punishment. But you can see why trying to love a person with this disability into health doesn't work either. It's a very sad condition and very dangerous.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You wrote,
Quote:
So long as a sociopath is capable of suffering,
.
I disagree; suffering should not be a criteria for treatment.

Do you mean treatment in the medical/clinical sense of the word?
Or do you mean as in deserving of moral consideration?

What I meant is that, if (someone, anyone) is capable of suffering,
then that suffering should be taken into account by those capable of moral behavior.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

I disagree because you're setting a precondition that you set as the criteria for treatment or anything else. They deserve medical-clinical-social-moral considerations if they are diagnosed with "any" illness.

If any of your family member - or you - suffers from alzheimers, how would you or your family member like to be treated by society?

3 Replies

@Lola,

Quote:

This is true for some infants. Many develop a condition called "failure to thrive." But not all.

Are you saying that some children who never receive human contact will survive and not die from marasmus?

I have read that If an infant is completely deprived of skin-to-skin contact, they will die from marasmus, which is basically a severe form of malnutrition. In fact, in certain cases, doctors have been able to reverse simply by moving the infant into a more nurturing environment.

There are many early records to be found of this, among the earliest, seen on the internet.
1248, the historian Salimbene ‘they could not live without petting’
In which Salimbene describes how the German emperor Frederick II conducted an experiment to find out what language children would speak if they were raised without hearing anyone talk. He took some newborns away from their parents and gave them to wet nurses who were forbidden to touch or talk with them. These babies never learned a language because they all died long before they could speak.

Maybe it was a combination of the two talk and touch? I guess that would increase the likelihood of death.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Cicerone wrote:

If any of your family member - or you - suffers from alzheimers, how would you or your family member like to be treated by society?

For my purposes in explaining, assume:

terms defined wrote:

Moral object = deserving of moral consideration
Moral agent = capable of moral behavior

My view is that:
A moral agent may be also be a moral object and always is. ("normal" human adult, probably most apes, dolphins, etc.)
A moral object is not necessarily a moral agent, and sometimes isn't. (sociopath, infant human, alzheimer's (if it progresses to extreme dementia), a rabid dog, animals in general, etc.)

If I (now looking at the hypothetical situation as a moral agent) were to look at the situation of my now being in the class that is incapable of moral agency,
Then I would prefer that the interests of my suffering were taken into consideration by those who still have moral agency.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Cirone Imposter wrote:

If any of your family member - or you - suffers from alzheimers, how would you or your family member like to be treated by society?

That gets at kind of the distinction between the "golden rule" and the view of Kant. Very Happy

Golden Rule wrote:

Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.

Leading to:
Moral Agent = Moral Object

rephrasing of The Categorical Imperative wrote:

Do unto others, as you would wish that the principle employed in the decision, were made to be a universal principle.

Needing to speculate as to the interests of moral objects. Needing to place yourself in the mind of another (as in your question).
Or in other words needing to employ the act of empathetic thinking.

Leading to:
A moral agent may be also a moral object and always is. ("normal" human adult)
A moral object is not necessarily a moral agent, and sometimes isn't. (sociopath, infant human, alzheimer's (if it progresses to extreme dementia), a rabid dog, animals in general, etc.)

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

I still don't know your answer to my q.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Chimps for example are capable of employing The Golden Rule.
As evidenced by chimpanzee reciprocity.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2698971/

Humans I would hope are capable of employing The Categorical Imperative.

Dolphins may actually already be capable of employing the extensions of empathy needed for The Categorical Imperative, as evidenced by actions in rescuing humans and other animals from drowning.
The same rescuing behaviors have also been seen in pigs trying to save children from drowning, as well as many accounts of dogs rescuing humans, dogs rescuing other animals, etc.

I am optimistic.
In that it seems even animals other than humans seem to have some hard-wired ability for empathy.
And that empathic ability seems to be extendable even by non-human animals.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I still don't know your answer to my q.

This q? wrote:

If any of your family member - or you - suffers from alzheimers, how would you or your family member like to be treated by society?

If you mean how would I like to be treated by other people who have all of their "faculties",
Then:
I want to be treated as if my suffering matters.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

How would you know if you are suffering if you have alzheimers?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

How would you know if you are suffering if you have alzheimers?

Hopefully you would be diagnosed early and would have the mental makeup that would allow you to know how you will likely progress. I hope that you would treat an Alzheimer patient the same as you would want to be treated.

0 Replies

Who are the proper subjects of moral consideration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know