Who are the proper subjects of moral consideration?

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

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

I am not one to try and find a threshold but when a person does not show empathy for their offspring I would have to say that is a starting point.

I "know" that an infant is suffering when it cries.

You wrote,

Quote:

I "know" that an infant is suffering when it cries.

A crying infant doesn't always mean it is suffering. You're talking about outside influences to get a reaction. We're talking about alzheimers.

The only way I would "know" if you were suffering Cicerone,
is also by the outward signs of it. You might tell me you are suffering. Those words are an outward sign then. That outward sign may be a lie. I would actually be much more inclined to believe in that suffering if I saw some corroborating evidence by your tears, or your body language, etc.

Lola being a psychoanalyst likely could contribute more than me in the techniques and the standards utilized by psychologists who work together with neuroscientits to determine the distinct conditions and classification issues involved with a labeling someone a sociopath.

By such a sick and gruesome example, I'm assuming you are going by the standards of studies done on sociopaths who have been in the prison population.

This is where the lack of a commonly accepted layman's definition of the term sociopath becomes problematic. You could be right in what you’re saying BUT the “problem” could also be the lack of whatever it is that hinders certain criminal sociopaths from taking consequence into account,

In other words, unless you believe that all people who fit the label of sociopath are unable to control themselves, what you’re saying about it being a disorder doesn’t necessarily follow

Ok to begin let me start with observation of reality.
Observation of reality does not support an ideal world where everyone agrees with everyone, and everyone is satisfied where it is some sort of paradise on Eart, called "the good life.

Dr. Katz' approach is therefore a only a theory (valid or not can be decided by others who have read it), and not scientific proof.

Dr. Katz intends for his ideal rationalised theory to become universal, it is no different than Communism, Nazism or other ideal rationalisation of social interaction.

Katz can use strange attractors, and other complex equations to model these societies and recognize that societies are complex. But the fact of it is that it remains nevertheless, nothing more than a theory, not scientific proof.

And if successful and adopted by the masses, this ideal rationalised theory that he calls the "good life" will take on a whole other role than the one he predicts or intends. Does Dr. Katz realize this will become a dogma, just like the other dogmas?

Marxism too looked good on paper when Marx wrote at the time of the Communes Revolt in Paris. Marxist societies look kind of different you see. It is inevitable: every society has its Gods and if an ideal rationalized theory becomes so succesfull as Dr. Katz intends it to become, then the theory will become the new dogma, and bring in the new gang of divinities. If this theory has with its own potential success to turn it into a man made dogma, and misinterpretations, just as happened with every other rationalised and ideal theory it could lead easily to violence.

And don't think I'm done, there is more criticism in my pocket to hand out.

Do you find value in Axiology?

If I had known of this term I would have been using it myself.

I do not recall Dr katz making a claim like this or suggesting it as being possible.

What claim has he made that you find no proof for?

Why do you see no difference? He is not making claims of absolutes but rather inviting others to refine what he has observed from his studies.

Do you find value in statistics? Do you find value in Axiology?

Do you think this to be true with other concepts that have been constructed using logical consistencies?

Why not use the word opinions rather than criticism ?

For one thing I think you are placing too high an opinion on societies if you think that they default to the scientific understanding. Look at global warming, look at criminal justice, look at education.

I would contend that it has expanded the discipline of theory of mind to have psychology. Now look at all the disciplines theory of mind can draw upon. Psychology, Systems Analysis, Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence, Sociology, Comparative Religion....