RE: Charles Manson, dead at age 83
November 22, 2017 at 7:11 am
(This post was last modified: November 22, 2017 at 7:17 am by GrandizerII.)
(November 22, 2017 at 6:56 am)Hammy Wrote:(November 21, 2017 at 7:05 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Yeah, I didn't say anything about Charles Manson being psychopathic. I'm just making general points here.
But anyway, a psychopath nevertheless has a mental deficiency in moral reasoning as they don't really see what's wrong about the things that most people intuitively understand to be wrong.
I disagree because I don't think having no consicence means you don't understand something is wrong. It means that you don't feel that something is wrong. Psychopaths can know that hurting people is bad but they don't care. You seem to be making the argument that Socrates made that no one knowingly does evil. I disagree with that strongly because there are many evil things that I could do that are evil. I'm not incapable of doing those things just because I know they are evil. Just because I don't do those things doesn't mean I can't.
In my opinion, they don't intuitively know that hurting people is bad. They only tentatively understand or accept (due to what they're told by society and such) that hurting people is bad. Big difference.
Quote:There's even been more recent scientific evidence that it may be the case that it's untrue that psychopaths don't have empathy, and in fact it looks like they have some sort of "empathy switch" where they can turn their empathy on and off as they please. Which would explain why they can often come across as empathetic so easily. They have no conscience, or no compassion, but not necessarily no empathy and they can make themselves feel what others are feeling to blend in, and then they can switch it back off again, murder someone for fun, bury the body and just continue with their life as if nothing happened, without a care in the world.
I wouldn't be surprised if that is true. What study/studies are you referring to? Are they conclusive enough (in quantity and quality and consensus) to be really good scientific evidence?