Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:20 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 6:12 pm
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 11:50 am it's really bad news to have a psychopath in your life.
Usually. And most of the time.

But can we say there's a straight relationship between brain structure or brain chemistry and behaviour? It seems not. There are people who have highly dysfunctional-structured brains who are nevertheless totally functional within their society or in some useful context they've found. And that even includes people who lack empathy or who have a propensity for violence.

I hear that investment bankers who are not neurotypical do much better. Many successful figures in sports have had, through damage or genetics, an odd brain structure, and yet continue to succeed. And there have probably been many outright psychopaths who functioned very well in the context of an army, or of some other difficult and daunting job. You might not want any of them as neighbours, but you might not mind them in a fire fight.

There's got to be a socio-contextual element to such an assessment, I'm sure. I'm just not sure how far that goes.

"You might not mind them (psychopaths) in a fire fight" endorses natural selection, and the idea that psychopaths are not bad people but people who are differently abled. I can well imagine the uses of a psychopathic killer who is controlled by a rational leader. I bet Hollywood has addressed that theme.

How far that goes is what moral philosophy is about. Is killing always wrong or does it depend on circumstances? There are rules in international law regarding who and when it's lawful to kill.

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:26 am**

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 02, 2022 7:39 pmBut bad eggs are caused to be bad.

By themselves, yeah.

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:33 am**

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:26 am
Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 02, 2022 7:39 pmBut bad eggs are caused to be bad.
By themselves, yeah.

Eggs are never selves or intentional agents of change, and eggs are caused to be good eggs or bad eggs by circumstances.

When we say a person is "a good egg" we don't specify whether or not she is so due to free will or other circumstances.

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2022 12:13 pm**

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:33 amWhen we say a person is "a good egg" we don't specify whether or not she is so due to free will or other circumstances.

Then let me be plain: bad eggs choose to be bad. Each one is a free will. Each one chooses to do rotten things. Each is responsible for his crappy acts.

Sure, there are damaged folks out there, but not nearly so many as they say.

It's like with the clinically depressed: there are folks with conditions, but not every person who wallows in a funk is dis-eased. A great many choose to be, choose to pretend to be, sad. It's a friggin' strategy.

This place, for example, has a couple or three truly damaged folks but they're the exception, not the rule. The bad eggs here choose to be, just as the bad eggs out in the world choose to be.

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2022 3:02 pm**

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:20 am "You might not mind them (psychopaths) in a fire fight" endorses natural selection

Like Evolutionists all do, you mean?

No, it doesn't. It's just a statement about how you would feel if you were in a trench, and you had a choice between a companion who had no fear or hesitancy, and one who was cringing and crying.

...the idea that psychopaths are not bad people but people who are differently abled.

That's hilarious, B.

Nobody said that...certainly, I didn't. But I can well imagine our politically-correct society redefining psychopaths as "differently abled," in just the way they've redefined other social pathologies as normal. Maybe that says more about how bent our social ethos is, than it says about psychopaths.

How far that goes is what moral philosophy is about. Is killing always wrong or does it depend on circumstances?

Our laws make it depend on circumstance. (In fact, so do God's laws, but let's stick to man's laws)

Premeditated killing is not the same as impulsive killing.
Intentional killing is not the same as accidental death.
Negligent accidents are not the same as genuine accidents causing death.
Self-defense is excusing of even intentional killing.
Defense of the weak and helpless often is, too.
War against an aggressor excuses even mass murder.
And not all killing is murder.

Paradoxically, you can tear helpless babies in the womb limb from limb, intentionally, and flush them down a sink, and that's not even criminal. Or, in many places now, you can freely execute a willing person, and you haven't murdered them, under permission of "compassionate death."

So much for man's laws. They contain equal portions of good sense and insanity.

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2022 6:18 pm**

Psychopathology is a genetic anomaly affecting one to two percent of the population. Psychopathology that is genetically caused has nothing to do with the psychopaths' life experiences. They are not victims of society but abrasions of the norm. A fortunate upbringing can mediate the degree the psychopath reeks mayhem upon society. If humanity is defined through its ability to feel compassion, then the psychopath falls clear of that definition as a victim of unfortunate biology.

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:06 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 3:02 pm
Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:20 am "You might not mind them (psychopaths) in a fire fight" endorses natural selection
Like Evolutionists all do, you mean?

No, it doesn't. It's just a statement about how you would feel if you were in a trench, and you had a choice between a companion who had no fear or hesitancy, and one who was cringing and crying.
...the idea that psychopaths are not bad people but people who are differently abled.
That's hilarious, B.

Nobody said that...certainly, I didn't. But I can well imagine our politically-correct society redefining psychopaths as "differently abled," in just the way they've redefined other social pathologies as normal. Maybe that says more about how bent our social ethos is, than it says about psychopaths.
How far that goes is what moral philosophy is about. Is killing always wrong or does it depend on circumstances?

Our laws make it depend on circumstance. (In fact, so do God's laws, but let's stick to man's laws)

Premeditated killing is not the same as impulsive killing.
Intentional killing is not the same as accidental death.
Negligent accidents are not the same as genuine accidents causing death.
Self-defense is excusing of even intentional killing.
Defense of the weak and helpless often is, too.
War against an aggressor excuses even mass murder.
And not all killing is murder.

Paradoxically, you can tear helpless babies in the womb limb from limb, intentionally, and flush them down a sink, and that's not even criminal. Or, in many places now, you can freely execute a willing person, and you haven't murdered them, under permission of "compassionate death."

So much for man's laws. They contain equal portions of good sense and insanity.

"Politically correct" is an insulting reference to a multi-dimensional social vision. You say "social pathologies" and rightly so if you are defending a law aimed at controlling erratically dangerous behaviour. Your "social pathologies" are of absolutely no relevance to God's all -embracing love.

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:15 pm**

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:06 pm "Politically correct" is an insulting reference to a multi-dimensional social vision.

Heh.

No, it refers to conformist, Neo-Marxist-based thought control.

And there's actually nothing "correct" or good about it. They just want to "correct" you to fit their warped, ideologically-possessed and authoritarian "social vision."

...if you are defending a law aimed at controlling erratically dangerous behaviour.

I wasn't "defending" any "law." I have no idea what you're imagining there.

Maybe you should quote what you're thinking I said that amounted to anything close to that.

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:37 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:15 pm
Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:06 pm "Politically correct" is an insulting reference to a multi-dimensional social vision.
Heh. No, it refers to conformist, Neo-Marxist-based thought control.

And there's actually nothing "correct" or good about it. They just want to "correct" you to fit their warped, ideologically-possessed and authoritarian "social vision."

...if you are defending a law aimed at controlling erratically dangerous behaviour.
I wasn't "defending" any "law." I have no idea what you're imagining there.

Maybe you should quote what you're thinking I said that amounted to anything close to that.

You are basically legalist. The Bible is your book of rules.

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2022 2:53 pm**

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:37 pm You are basically legalist. The Bible is your book of rules.

Very far from it. A "legalist" follows a set of "laws," in the hopes of being made righteous by so doing. He/she thinks he/she can make himself/herself into a good person -- no assistance needed from God.

The Bible is clear: "By the deeds of the law, nobody will be justified in [God's] sight; for through the law comes the knowledge of sin." (Rm. 3:20)

A "legalist" has to believe otherwise. Obviously, I do not.

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2022 3:17 pm**

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 12:13 pm
Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:33 amWhen we say a person is "a good egg" we don't specify whether or not she is so due to free will or other circumstances.
Sure, there are damaged folks out there, but not nearly so many as they say.

And contrary to the Social Justice rubbish, "damaged" does not mean "devoid of free will." It just means that the person has had a traumatic experience.

But that's life, inevitably. We're never going to purge trauma from it, because there's so many kinds of "damage" a person can experience. No government or social structure, no matter how thorough, can eliminate it. "Damaged" people are still morally responsible for how the respond to their trauma, and for what they elect to do with the hand of cards they have been dealt. And there is, and can be, no alternative to that. Their being "damaged" can be some extenuation in the case of failure, but it is not ever an excuse for them choosing to do evil. And any good choices they make in spite of the "damage," well maybe for those they deserve higher esteem from us than the allegedly "undamaged" people. But nobody gets to plead, "I had no choice, I was damaged."

Actually, everybody's "damaged" to some degree, because life is just hard. It just is. And you don't have to live long to know that.

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2022 3:42 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 2:53 pm
Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:37 pm You are basically legalist. The Bible is your book of rules.
Very far from it. A "legalist" follows a set of "laws," in the hopes of being made righteous by so doing. He/she thinks he/she can make himself/herself into a good person -- no assistance needed from God.

The Bible is clear: "By the deeds of the law, nobody will be justified in [God's] sight; for through the law comes the knowledge of sin." (Rm. 3:20)

A "legalist" has to believe otherwise. Obviously, I do not.

I am corrected. I do agree with Paul that through the law we become conscious of sin. However I don't agree with Paul that Jews are specially chosen to further God's law, nor that The Bible is the intellectual property of Jews.

Paul , by "the law" , understands Jewish law, not Jewish law together with all other civilised codes of law.

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2022 8:03 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 3:17 pmActually, everybody's "damaged" to some degree

Nah. Healthy folks are inured; unhealthy folks are injured.

And evil folks are evil.

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2022 8:09 pm**

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 3:42 pm I don't agree with Paul that Jews are specially chosen to further God's law, nor that The Bible is the intellectual property of Jews.

Paul doesn't think so either. Check out Romans 2, and you'll know that for sure.

Paul , by "the law" , understands Jewish law, not Jewish law together with all other civilised codes of law.

He actually understands "the Law of God." It was the Pharisees and Sadducees who mistook human law, the cultural one, for God's. See Matthew 15:1-14.

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2022 8:58 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 8:09 pm
Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 3:42 pm I don't agree with Paul that Jews are specially chosen to further God's law, nor that The Bible is the intellectual property of Jews.
Paul doesn't think so either. Check out Romans 2, and you'll know that for sure.

Paul , by "the law" , understands Jewish law, not Jewish law together with all other civilised codes of law.
He actually understands "the Law of God." It was the Pharisees and Sadducees who mistook human law, the cultural one, for God's. See Matthew 15:1-14.

I read the Scriptures you recommended. I did like Paul but had difficulty with Jesus according to Matthew. I think there are not as many sins as there were formerly. Is there an equivalent passage in Mark?

I read Romans 3 and I must have misunderstood, as Romans 2 is clear to me.

Philosophy Now Forum

moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism

Re: moral relativism