Hmm... random thoughts... Those without ethics them will not be limited by empathy for others, and those of us with them can be fooled by unethical people. this is the reason so many business owners are sociopaths, and so many common people feel guilty for their failures in a system governed by selfishness. should we sacrifice? if you are empathic, you might, and if you arent, naturally you wont. the problem with empathy is that it can be a weakness, for those without it to attack, to control, and manipulate. People believe just in case, sometimes out of fear of danger, or because of empathy, that they should help others. People want to do good, but instead, sometimes do whats wrong, because theyre convinced the risk to the contrary isnt worth the possible damage to another person. A sociopath can only rationally evaluate their behaviors and see that for all of society, or humanity, they might be destructive. A sociopath will believe just in case only for themselves. Emotions are efficient, but sometimes blinding. Sociopaths in groups are more efficient, but lack concern for our survival as a species, or at least emotionally, but not rationally. They can construct their ethics based on what they consciously choose. A normal, can not when blinded/affected by emotions, but have unconsciously shared interests with/for their species. A normal person can consciously construct their ethics, but in a dangerous situation (depending on how dangerous they naturally think it is), their ethics might fall apart. Sociopaths can collectively, like with business or government, control and manipulate people without concern. Interestingly, anyone in this position can act like a sociopath, because being in such a position means you dont usually have to encounter the people you are causing harm to. You wouldnt have to see the effects of your actions. Our oughts our based on self-reflection of cause and effect. A sociopath usually picks effects that will benefit them. For both a normal person and a sociopath, the what it ought to be is a matter of what I ought to do, and this translate into: what I am doing, what do I have to do, to make things the way I think they ought to be. The action that will cause things to be the way they think they ought to be, can be derived from their psychological state, current conditions from their environment, and genetic predispositions for different chemical balances in the brain. The current state of the person overall, the is, their mind is this way, is where their ought comes from. My conclusion is that sociopaths derive their oughts fully from a limited amount of consciousness, while healthy and normal people dont consciously derive their oughts when dealing with other people, because theyre naturally reactive to similarly conscious beings. Sociopaths have no natural differentiation between objects and people (they see people as objects to be controlled). Since some of the oughts unconsciously determining on what people consciously think they ought to do, I claim that humes guillotine does apply. The mind is constantly reactive to the body, which is reactive to the environment, and some of the oughts or ought nots are based on our perception of our subconscious, but not an absolute ought, meaning some of the ought is being unconsciously inherited from the mind, or being influenced by some of the natural mechanisms we understand. An ought can be to a degree of certainty when challenged by facts, and an is to a full degree of certainty (facts about the mind and subjectivity). If something is objectively wrong (based on moral facts), then an ought is really an ought to be or consequence of ignoring facts.
Posted on: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 08:47:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015