Comments on: Logic Sociopaths and Morality Sociopaths

By: But Is It Morality? But Is It Consciousness? -- a Nadder!

But Is It Morality? But Is It Consciousness? -- a Nadder! — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 02:06:02 +0000

[...] posted before about why I think this is probably a red herring. But there are some uncanny parallels to [...]

By: Nunbeliever

Nunbeliever — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:17:17 +0000

To Keddaw:

You say that morality and logic can’t be compared because the rules of logic are known and specific in regard to a given axiom.

I think you are wrong making this distinction. First of all, whether the rules are known or not is irrelevant. The important question is whether there is in principle a definte logical pathway leading from the axiom to a conclusion. I think there is.

One moral axiom could be that morality is the pursuit of well-being (in contrast to morality is the pursuit to fulfill the will of god or something similar) and hence values that result in misery are immoral.

Of course the causal relations are at the present largely unknown. Indeed, even the concept of well-being is a diffuse one. Still, in principle there is most certainly a definite logical pathway. For example, a father thinks beating his children will in the end result in greater well-being for the children. But, if it is revealed that the net effect of corporal punishment regarding well-being is negative the father has no other choice than to regard beating his children as immoral. That is a definite logical pathway.

By: keddaw

keddaw — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 03:10:57 +0000

For my tuppenceworth, I think that the vast, vast majority of compassion in judicial cases lie in the hands of the jury (they don’t always realise that, but that’s another issue). Judges can take circumstances into account on sentencing, prosecutors can take circumstances into account on deciding which crime to try.

However, there is a distinction to be made between circumstances and compassion.

There is a whole post to be had on this topic, which you may have already had, but I think trying to fully explain my views on why retribution is wrong and only deterrence and prevention are the valid reasons to punish someone are outwith the scope of a comment and also off topic…

One point I would make is that way back they realised that the statue representing justice should be blindfolded and hold a sword in one hand and scales in the other. They were wrong on many things but I feel they make a decent start here.

By: michael

michael — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 08:57:18 +0000

From what I understand of non-conservative judicial interpretation (this comes largely from Ed Brayton of the Dispatches From The Culture Wars blog and Declaring Independence Podcast), the idea is that you can’t have a system of rules that tells you everything in terms of what to do and the legal system is a very special case. Very often the law does not make it clear which way one should go, and in those cases you have to rely on your own judgement (and those of conservative legal theory also rely on their judgement even if they pretend not to), in which case compassion would be a decent thing to go by.

This is the view as I read it and I largely agree based on the uni work I did on the inadequacy of rules to describe “scientific method” as well as some other similar thoughts. Until we solve the AI problem and do a much better reverse-engineering of the human brain, any system of rules we create that doesn’t take this into account will contain heaps of hidden biases, assumptions and fuzzy concepts from the messy structure of our brain hence no formal system with rigorous definitions has been enough to explain what to do in an interesting area of life (eg. law, science, morality). I’ve certainly never seen one — but this goes back to our general disagreement on metaethics.

By: keddaw

keddaw — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:11:04 +0000

A low level judge should have compassion and understanding, but when you get to the level of the Supreme Court you’ll find that all they’re actually allowed to rule upon is points of law. Therefore compassion is beyond irrelevant to the point of being unconstitutional.

But I’m not American so this may be a mis-reading of the situation on my part.

By: michael

michael — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:20:50 +0000

So would you join those conservatives (judicial and otherwise) who jumped on Obama when he dared to say that the Supreme Court appointee should have compassion?

By: keddaw

keddaw — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 07:31:01 +0000

Xausted – no offence, but that is the kind of emotional rant that shows that reason is the only way forward.

By your ‘logic’ then courts are sociopathic. They are intentionally set up to be logical and dispassionate, considering the facts before coming to a decision.

Ironically, from the sounds of your situation, the courts are your best hope. The use of reason and logic would dictate that the best environment for your baby would be with you (from the limited information you provide) and it would definitely not side with a sociopath over an empathic person.

“Therefore rights are equal, is so bizarre that it is frightening.”
So said the Protestant men when the Catholic men wanted to vote, so said the men when the women wanted to vote, so said the whites when the blacks wanted to vote…

By: Xausted

Xausted — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:37:34 +0000

The father of my child is a Sociopath, I know it, I think he knows it..although he has never admitted it to me. I could write about him, and it would write the profile of a true sociopath. He wants our son…I find what you are talking about true..yet with healthy mind..even though being screwed up with the seemingly endless word tennis is completely mind shattering. All logic, empathy, understanding, fact, law, basic human rights are completely undermined..with their logic, their perspective of what their rights are. I seemed to argue really well my points of why i did not think it right for my child to be away from me to the point I see him on a Monday and a Friday afternoon. However, with all my arguements falling on deaf ears, I simply said, but I am his mother, I love him, he is my son and we need each other. He is a baby..only just 12mths. He quite matter of factly said, “what is the difference, I am his father..”and proceeded to use my own words of love and pain of losing my child against me, leaving me completely utterly at a loss to explain what it means to be a mother, or to love. Logic, would say, I would hope, he is wrong, there is no same feeling towards a mother and child, the same I could never have the love as a father does for his child. Love is there, but it is different, it should not be compared, or used as a tool, but to have someone, to actually use an emotion of mine, for my first born baby, against me on pure, logic..it takes two attitude? Therefore rights are equal, is so bizarre that it is frightening.

By: Anatomy of a Moral Disagreement -- a Nadder!

Anatomy of a Moral Disagreement -- a Nadder! — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:49:35 +0000

[...] not provable from non-moral statements [...]

By: keddaw

keddaw — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:00:54 +0000

The idea that torturing a puppy is wrong relies on:

Assuming that a puppy is a thinking, feeling living being;
Assuming a puppy understands (feels) pain in a similar way to you;
Assuming a puppy does not like or want pain;
Assuming a puppy has rights to avoid pain that outweigh your rights to do what you want;
Assuming that ‘ownership’ of the puppy does not confer unlimited ownership rights on you;
Assuming ‘wrong’ means to go counter to the general empathetic feelings humans have – and;
Assuming a puppy is deserving of human empathy.

It seems to me you make a lot of unwarranted, or at least unproven, assumptions when you say that torturing a puppy is wrong.