When I read his answer to the surgeon's dilemma, I took his motivations a different way, when he mentions: "Good news." Saving these 5 people are in the doctor's best interest for the sake of his reputation.
I do think killing the guy to save the 5 people is the correct decision in this scenario, as it is.
I literally can't imagine the level of guilt I'd feel from killing someone. I've never done anything that would warrant more than minor guilt. I've heard stories of soldiers haunted their entire lives for killing. I might never be the same. The guilt might manifest in depression and anxiety that would make my life Hell.
But then, if I believe killing the guy is right, I might feel even more guilt if I let the 5 people die. In reality, it'd be a decision I'd make in the moment. What do I feel when I place my scalpel on the guy's throat? Is it guilt or is it conviction? And if it's guilt am I willing to be selfless and sacrifice my mental health as well?
I do try to thoroughly think things through thoroughly and logically in a big picture way. But I'm a highly emotional person, despite how I might seem. And so, I try to take my emotions into account. Really, reading your writings has greatly helped me understand human emotion. If you really want to understand something, you need to see it from both the inside and the outside.
As for baby Hitler? Yeah, I'd kill him, whatever the personal sacrifice. Sure, it could result in a worse future. But in all likelihood, it will result in a better future. There's just too much at stake in the scenario for me to be concerned about baby Hitler or myself.
Though, what I do dislike about these scenarios is that they encourage binary thinking. In reality, first thing anyone is going to do is look for a more favorable option. E.g. kidnap baby Hitler with your TIME MACHINE so he doesn't grow up to be such a monster.
Its also easier to be Utilitarian when the situation is simple. In the real world, things are much more complicated and the consequences of our actions are often uncertain at best, unlike with the doctor. When there's too many variables and uncertainty, people will usually go with what is comfortable and familiar, e.g. not killing someone. After all, you don't want to find out some information later and then regret killing them. Its recognizing that we are fallible and not jumping to an extreme solution when you haven't had the time or info to fully think things through.
I think the same way about the dilemmas. As for the baby Hitler one, I wrote a whole essay on it for ethics.
I wouldn’t kill Hitler both if I were a time traveler and if I were his contemporary.
In the first case because I find the idea of changing the least weird. Don’t wave fists when the fight is over, as the idiom goes. What has happened has happened, why should we change it? Though even if I didn’t find the idea to be weird, it’s pointless. Contrary to a popular belief not people make history, rather circumstances do. There had already been ultraright ideas in Europe when Hitler was a baby and if not him, someone else could well play his role. Someone better than him, or someone worse. We cannot know if there hadn’t been Hitler, what the history would be, how much more or less victims could have been there, and considering the fact that German nazis were more human than Japanese ones, there could have been more, and how much more or less good things could have appeared after war. As for the good things, for me, if not ww2, my great-grandparents wouldn’t have met, and I certainly wouldn’t want to kill Hitler at the expense of my own life. I like my life much more than I dislike him.
In the second case, if I were his contemporary, I wouldn’t do it because killing him because someone told me that he would grow up to be a war criminal is delusional.
I have a sort of distaste for moral dilemmas myself. I know they are designed to illustrate certain things, but they usually involve assumptions that annoy me. I think it's exactly as you say -- the circumstances drive history. There's an assumption that it would be for the greater good to kill Hitler, whereas in reality, fuck if we know. At least wait until you HAVE a time machine to come back to me with this question. ;)
Ok ok, sure, I'll admit, when I was 10 my favorite show was Quantum Leap, the whole premise of which was to use time travel to "set right what once went wrong." But I've changed a little bit since then...
My parents would not have met if not for Hitler. And while I value my own life, if I had simply not come into being, that is no big deal compared to the millions saved and the magnitide of suffering that would have been avoided by killing Hitler.
I realise we can never know what might have happened with no Hitler, and whether someone else may have been as bad or worse, but to me thats a cop out, here is certain extreme bad, you can choose to prevent it or not.
Millions saved, and millions dead either way, but when you kill baby Hitler those deaths are now on you, not on him.
Those that would never have been born but for the sake of the war would now exist, and that would be because of you. The 1200 on Schindler's List alone have more than 8,000 decedents living which would not be if that even not happened.
The thing is, I am not convinced there would be millions dead either way.
Other people would exist instead of the millions born for the sake of the war, equally valuable. And millions more would very likely be alive and not have suffered terribly. I wouldn't exist, but someone else would.
There may be a personal aspect to this, because my parents were among those who suffered and are lucky to be alive, but nevertheless, I think I just see this differently, as is inevitable when people discuss these ethics dilemmas.
Lol I always enjoy and get a lot of insight from your knowledge of psychopathy..I also roll my eyes when neurotypical people ask the why isn’t the psycho path out murdering now as we speak? Or assume that you will only find them in prisons…I guess if someone has a brain in their head,neurotypical or otherwise they should be able to utilize logical thinking on this topic! It took me a long time to even get an inkling that I could be borderline or have the traits… and that even though I’m not violent or abusive that this could be the issue… very hard to find a good psychiatrist that knows about b clusters that will treat me and I want to get help but …. The world isn’t an easy or fair place
I agree. I have been listening to some interviews with Elinor Greenberg on YouTube to get a better understanding of narcissism, borderline, and schizoid adaptations. Very interesting, and also quite far from what most people think or assume about them.
I find that psychiatrists do often “generalize” their thinking about all sorts of illnesses or personality issues, especially those new to the profession or those who are leery of novel approaches to treatment. Now, biologically, we are all wired to think this way, but as intelligent professionals, one would hope there would be a hesitancy in grouping everyone together, at least after a few sessions, as rapport is developed. Remember too, although this is not an excuse, psychiatrists are typically overwhelmed with patients, are limited in both the time they can give them and frequency of sessions. In Canada, the psychiatrist typically now acts only as a one-time brief consult for the family doctor, as our mental health system is completely overloaded. One only gets more than one session if in crisis, in hospital, or has a long and complicated history of “disease”. It’s a terrible system at best, and dangerous at worst.
You know how some kids go astray in bad company? If a child psychopath has joined a gang , he may commit crimes like murdering or so because that is what would be required to blend in. Now if he is rehabilitated, he would come to see that his previous adopted behaviour does not align with the social construct of society. To blend in he would now have to change his behaviour , become socially responsible. So he gives up his criminal inclination without any relapse. I think it all comes down to what environment they are exposed to any time in their life, not that different from neurotypicals.
Very interesting! I find myself underestimating the psychopathic minds’ emphasis on self-interest, all the time. I wonder what responses (and thoughts) one would get if comparing a range of psychopaths with greatly varying intelligence. I’ve also often wondered a few things:
1. Do intelligence and the biology of the psychopathic brain have some sort of correlation, or do NT’s perceive the psychopath to be more intelligent because the devision-making processes are not encumbered by the (often irrational) influence of emotion? Do we subconsciously (or otherwise) envy this? Is it projection?
2. Are psychopaths more successful at decision-making or less? I think, in this case, the actual choice to be made, obviously, has a huge effect, as would the psychopath in question’s ability to reason out emotions cognitively.
3 I am so curious as to how psychopaths learn to “cognitively feel” and if this just happens as they learn to mask to adapt to society? Does early socialization play a significant role?
I must commend you for approaching this subject. I think it’s likely to get less “flack” because you are writing on a platform that has your regular readers (whom I find to be a thoughtful, logical bunch - yay). I can imagine some readers who approach this essay with a closed mind or are a bit blinded by religious zeal, may definitely misinterpret it. You are brave to do so and I applaud your “desire” to improve the understanding of your brain/experience (and similar) as it relates to the massive body of ignorance out there.
By the way, you need to replace a few periods with question marks, as your writing has some, perhaps rhetorical questions, but questions nonetheless. Just a bit of punctuation perfection needed (and I say it not out of a place of superiority, not at all).
I think that decision making is going to depend heavily on whether they are low functioning or not. If they are, I imagine impulse control issues will get in the way of sound decision making. If they are high functioning, and very logical, they may be better at it than average. It depends on the person.
Well, cognitive feelings aren't really a thing. If you are referring to cognitive love and trust, with cognitive love is it a matter of seeing what my SO needs and doing those things. He is wanted in my life so I make it a point to make sure he has what he needs and wants.
Trust is a different beast really, because it is basically watching a person over a very long period of time, seeing who they are as a person and how they treat those around them in a variety of roles, and if they demonstrate that they are worthy of trust, I will grant it to them in increments.
Hm... that's supposed to be Grammerly's whole job...
For neurotypicals, I think it's so difficult to imagine what life is like with oxytocin-absent and other-tamped-down emotions, that most of us simply fail to imagine it. And yes, Athena, I believe you are right that it's like the morality question posed to atheists by God-believers: If you don't believe in God, why wouldn't you have sex with everyone and steal from your neighbors, etc?
(Being an atheist myself, I completely understand why we don't. Partly, like you, I don't see any upside to it -- and partly I agree with your golden rule principle, that if I don't want it done to me, I shouldn't go around doing it to others. Ie, Be and create the world I want to live in. Perhaps I'm a tad psychopathic on this score. But if your only reason for not doing "bad things" is that some white-haired all-powerful critter in the sky is going to punish you, well, that seems very immature to me. For me, morality and ethics are a matter of thinking through my values, and living by them.)
We NT's fail to imagine that together with the absence of guilt, shame, and similar inhibitions, there is also an absence of rage, lust, jealousy, greed, and desires for revenge -- the motives of perhaps 90+% of all murders. (Well, perhaps y'all psychopaths might experience greed? Not sure that's actually an emotion as opposed to a motive.)
Though as motives for murder are concerned, we're still left with covering up having committed a crime. Which would be based on fear of exposure. Dunno how such a fear or motive would fit into psychopathic realities.
If the only reason someone doesn't act is because they are worried about punishment, then your actions are not pure. They are tainted by the thirst for a reward in the afterlife.
No matter what religion, thoughts do matter, even if people don't think so.If you do not steal from neighbours, but fantasise in your mind, you will very likely not get the reward you thirst for in the afterlife.
"who am I to make that choice. Their lives are inherently valuable as I stated, but they are not more valuable than the traveler that would lose his life, and I as the surgeon would determine that it was less valuable. That’s not my place. if I want the value of my own life respected, I must respect that of others. That to me is a logical decision. It is unfortunate for the five patients, but their existence alone is not enough to defer my estimation of life and its value."
Fascinating analysis. And spot on. Along with baby Hitler and erasing all the events and relationships created by WWII's happenings. Along with Alexandra's notion (paraphrasing) "and the consequences might have been worse -- because someone else likely would come along and take advantage of the same political situation, someone possibly more competent in his/her destructiveness than Hitler."
But even then, doing the surgery doesnt guarantee that the 5 will be saved— we can say that its reasonably likely to heal them but not guaranteed; and were it to fail you would have killed one person for no benefit, and more harm.
People have an overestimation as to their value, and their importance in the world. Things play out exactly how they are meant to. I have seen this many times in my life.
It is not my place to decide that all the people created from relationships forged in the fires and aftermath of WWII shouldn't exist, just as it is no one's place to have the mind that psychopaths should not exist. It is a matter of applying the same standard to the world that I expect to be applied toward me.
'Exactly as they are meant to' by what or by whom or in what way? And how do you know that? This 'meant to' is foreign to my thinking. I ask because you seem very certain, and I only know that idea as a religious or spiritual constuct.
The problem that I see is that just as it might be meant for the five to die it might be meant for the sixth to come to provide a way out of it. Sure, nature's course was that their bodies fail, but nature's course apparently was also that people invent surgery and this surgeon with a dilemma finds himself here being a cog that enacts what is meant to happen. He will be a conduct whether through passivity or activity. What would make activity less likely what is meant to play out than passivity?
This reminds me a little bit of certain religious folks who say to atheists (who they don't understand), "If you're an atheist, there's just no reason to not run amok and sin like crazy! Why WOULDN'T you just go have sex with and steal from and murder whoever you wanted??" Like seriously, the ONLY reason you behave is because (you believe) God tells you to?
To tell the truth, it does make me skeptical that people behave in the way they think they behave, at least in the NT world. I know I haven't always behaved the way I thought I'd behave in certain situations, sometimes in the favor of "good." I put "good" in quotes because it represents acting on a value (such as loyalty) over something that my logic leads me to (eh, just get a better job). Ultimately I'm very satisfied with the results of my behavior, but it's not like I had some sort of crystal ball or anything.
I wonder if there's some amount of this when people talk about psychopaths (who they don't understand). As in, they view empathy as such a great value and wonderful thing to have, that they think it plays a bigger role in their behavior (which is probably quite complicated) than it actually does.
I know, this may in some ways go against your observations over the years in the ways NTs behave that are actually quite emotional when they would claim it's all logical. And I also am confident those observations are spot on.
Maybe it's just that (as far as I can see) a great deal of things factor into behavior, including the society that other people create (including what consequences there are for getting caught for crimes). Overall it seems silly to me to say something like, "If X were true, then everybody would definitely go out and do Y!!!"
We would not know without God telling us much children would be rather clueless about prosociality without parents showing them the ropes. And sincee atheism came second, atheists actually learnt from Christians and do not realize they are standing on their shoulders much like Newton didn't start from point zero, but had predecessors. (Except christian moral code is not purely christian and it hints at some ignorance regarding history.)
Or... How can you perceive the rules and not perceive God when that is intertwined. That's like noticing oxygen part of water and not hydrogen part of water.
I think they might be equating atheism with relativistic and nihilistic philosophy. If it was in atheistic circles that thoughts like morality not being the sort of objective stuff like gravitation and fire being hot, but rather purely human convention... That's kinda eroding. There was some dismantling of rules and reasons for rules. It still resonates, I guess. Hmm... Atheism was also feature of communism...
Hubris! That's it. Atheist in the face of empty world is by neccesity the one deciding what to do. To someone for whom God as the source of order is given, this sounds placing themselves into this position. And frankly, current civilization has some tendencies of "I am master of creation and know he best and need to fear no consequences", which atually has root in christian outlook and having been given world to master. To deny God sounds like denial of limits. Meanwhile atheist can perfectly well recognize limits, just doesn't ascribe this sort of entity to them that is described in Bible.
On additional note... Christianity has long history of being a stabilizing element in war torn early middle-ages. That their hands aren't snow white is another thing. That might be in some sense be echoing still too. And I would like to stress inquisition was defo not the only one interrogating and executing people or always aiming only for that.
I am not entirely sure if I am actually providing some food for thought or merely thinking aloud, but here is what I arived at as possible processes behind that stance.
My first thought was five vs one, but I have been confronted few times with how thse experiments are very simplified next to reality and rarely options listed are all the options. And I am asking... Where in that experiment it is said that the organs those five are missing are not those that they have available in the person next to them. All five are dying. If the selection is about the same in all of them, then I determine who has the least chances of recovery (I might feel need to add other things like what I know about their families etc. - who depends on them and stuff - what info is available) and I sacrifice him to save the other four by using him as donor. If the selection is not about the same, then I'll see who has what to give and who doesn't and pick based on that. If I were to arrive to equation two sacrificed for three, that's still a go. If it is three against two, remember, I am not putting to risk that visitor, that's third life. If only one could get an organ from another of the patients... Now I am getting conflicted.
If no available means these five people included and really oly the visitor has them... I am still reluctant to ruin perfectly healthy life for five compromised ones. And all the other factors like how old, living alone of being a pillar of community and there might be stills tuff that subverts it all but cannot be known. I might end up flipping coin. And I might end up not looking at it because I would hate myself for offloading that decision like that. Something pulls at my thought process with "there is a reason why, even if not apparent" and there is also not wanting to be cowed by custom for teh sake of custom. I reached a point where I am not sure how I would decide though I suspect I would choose to risk the catch. I can only tell that if I let those five die I would feel cowardly and if I killed him I would feel like I possibly damned myself in some sense and waited for the shoe to drop. Which is not exclusive with a wisp of satisfaction with being able to go for it anyway. Self-image and stuff.
And all this is still less than wind, because I came across information that while many people answer they would decide trolley dilemma based on number, when put in conditions where they have to make hard choices like that and think them real, they freeze. The reluctance to do proactive thing is strong. And I think fear of punishment might be part of it, but not whole of it.
Your perspective on value makes sense and is thoughtprovoking.
With Hitler... Surprisingly little might change and surprisigly lot too and either way it might be about the same level of nightmare, just different, because WWII is not his work alone. He was only tip of iceberg. Germany was in crisis because of messed up diplomacy and collective unresolved issues, whole Europe was in crisis. If it wasn't him in leadership, it would be most likely someone else. Someone who might go very differently about things, but someone who would be working with the same options as Hitler was. Public would have still the same desires and grievances. It might come later, it might come sooner. But removing him as a baby does not magically douse a whole dumpster fire. And that sort of thinking is not conductive of preventing similar dumster fires of happening again.
I am not certain if I agree with the sentence, "In none of my reasoning am I considering as emotional cause for my action."
It seems to me that "valuing" is also an emotion, though perhaps a cooler one than love or hate. I thought about similar things years ago, and remember concluding that mathematics might be the only thinking I do without emotions... not even sure about that, since math is often beautiful to me -- and I think perception of beauty has an emotional basis.
But then, just because these things feel this way to me, doesn't mean they have to in another brain, I guess? Very hard to know that, but it's also hard to separate such things in one's own brain.. our self-awareness is only ever partial I believe.
Valuing is not an emotion. I know that children have value and should be protected, but I don't like children. It is the logical evaluation of the world that provides me this knowledge, not an emotion.
Hmmm. I don't kid myself that we have that much influence on matters, sure, but my problem is the word 'supposed', I just don't believe in some external purpose or direction at work.
When I read his answer to the surgeon's dilemma, I took his motivations a different way, when he mentions: "Good news." Saving these 5 people are in the doctor's best interest for the sake of his reputation.
I do think killing the guy to save the 5 people is the correct decision in this scenario, as it is.
I literally can't imagine the level of guilt I'd feel from killing someone. I've never done anything that would warrant more than minor guilt. I've heard stories of soldiers haunted their entire lives for killing. I might never be the same. The guilt might manifest in depression and anxiety that would make my life Hell.
But then, if I believe killing the guy is right, I might feel even more guilt if I let the 5 people die. In reality, it'd be a decision I'd make in the moment. What do I feel when I place my scalpel on the guy's throat? Is it guilt or is it conviction? And if it's guilt am I willing to be selfless and sacrifice my mental health as well?
I do try to thoroughly think things through thoroughly and logically in a big picture way. But I'm a highly emotional person, despite how I might seem. And so, I try to take my emotions into account. Really, reading your writings has greatly helped me understand human emotion. If you really want to understand something, you need to see it from both the inside and the outside.
As for baby Hitler? Yeah, I'd kill him, whatever the personal sacrifice. Sure, it could result in a worse future. But in all likelihood, it will result in a better future. There's just too much at stake in the scenario for me to be concerned about baby Hitler or myself.
Though, what I do dislike about these scenarios is that they encourage binary thinking. In reality, first thing anyone is going to do is look for a more favorable option. E.g. kidnap baby Hitler with your TIME MACHINE so he doesn't grow up to be such a monster.
Its also easier to be Utilitarian when the situation is simple. In the real world, things are much more complicated and the consequences of our actions are often uncertain at best, unlike with the doctor. When there's too many variables and uncertainty, people will usually go with what is comfortable and familiar, e.g. not killing someone. After all, you don't want to find out some information later and then regret killing them. Its recognizing that we are fallible and not jumping to an extreme solution when you haven't had the time or info to fully think things through.
I think the same way about the dilemmas. As for the baby Hitler one, I wrote a whole essay on it for ethics.
I wouldn’t kill Hitler both if I were a time traveler and if I were his contemporary.
In the first case because I find the idea of changing the least weird. Don’t wave fists when the fight is over, as the idiom goes. What has happened has happened, why should we change it? Though even if I didn’t find the idea to be weird, it’s pointless. Contrary to a popular belief not people make history, rather circumstances do. There had already been ultraright ideas in Europe when Hitler was a baby and if not him, someone else could well play his role. Someone better than him, or someone worse. We cannot know if there hadn’t been Hitler, what the history would be, how much more or less victims could have been there, and considering the fact that German nazis were more human than Japanese ones, there could have been more, and how much more or less good things could have appeared after war. As for the good things, for me, if not ww2, my great-grandparents wouldn’t have met, and I certainly wouldn’t want to kill Hitler at the expense of my own life. I like my life much more than I dislike him.
In the second case, if I were his contemporary, I wouldn’t do it because killing him because someone told me that he would grow up to be a war criminal is delusional.
Your evaluation of the situation is quite logical and sound.
I have a sort of distaste for moral dilemmas myself. I know they are designed to illustrate certain things, but they usually involve assumptions that annoy me. I think it's exactly as you say -- the circumstances drive history. There's an assumption that it would be for the greater good to kill Hitler, whereas in reality, fuck if we know. At least wait until you HAVE a time machine to come back to me with this question. ;)
Ok ok, sure, I'll admit, when I was 10 my favorite show was Quantum Leap, the whole premise of which was to use time travel to "set right what once went wrong." But I've changed a little bit since then...
I can totally understand your point
My parents would not have met if not for Hitler. And while I value my own life, if I had simply not come into being, that is no big deal compared to the millions saved and the magnitide of suffering that would have been avoided by killing Hitler.
I realise we can never know what might have happened with no Hitler, and whether someone else may have been as bad or worse, but to me thats a cop out, here is certain extreme bad, you can choose to prevent it or not.
Millions saved, and millions dead either way, but when you kill baby Hitler those deaths are now on you, not on him.
Those that would never have been born but for the sake of the war would now exist, and that would be because of you. The 1200 on Schindler's List alone have more than 8,000 decedents living which would not be if that even not happened.
The thing is, I am not convinced there would be millions dead either way.
Other people would exist instead of the millions born for the sake of the war, equally valuable. And millions more would very likely be alive and not have suffered terribly. I wouldn't exist, but someone else would.
There may be a personal aspect to this, because my parents were among those who suffered and are lucky to be alive, but nevertheless, I think I just see this differently, as is inevitable when people discuss these ethics dilemmas.
Lol I always enjoy and get a lot of insight from your knowledge of psychopathy..I also roll my eyes when neurotypical people ask the why isn’t the psycho path out murdering now as we speak? Or assume that you will only find them in prisons…I guess if someone has a brain in their head,neurotypical or otherwise they should be able to utilize logical thinking on this topic! It took me a long time to even get an inkling that I could be borderline or have the traits… and that even though I’m not violent or abusive that this could be the issue… very hard to find a good psychiatrist that knows about b clusters that will treat me and I want to get help but …. The world isn’t an easy or fair place
I agree. I have been listening to some interviews with Elinor Greenberg on YouTube to get a better understanding of narcissism, borderline, and schizoid adaptations. Very interesting, and also quite far from what most people think or assume about them.
I find that psychiatrists do often “generalize” their thinking about all sorts of illnesses or personality issues, especially those new to the profession or those who are leery of novel approaches to treatment. Now, biologically, we are all wired to think this way, but as intelligent professionals, one would hope there would be a hesitancy in grouping everyone together, at least after a few sessions, as rapport is developed. Remember too, although this is not an excuse, psychiatrists are typically overwhelmed with patients, are limited in both the time they can give them and frequency of sessions. In Canada, the psychiatrist typically now acts only as a one-time brief consult for the family doctor, as our mental health system is completely overloaded. One only gets more than one session if in crisis, in hospital, or has a long and complicated history of “disease”. It’s a terrible system at best, and dangerous at worst.
Yes, I agree. The system is overloaded and that does make things much more difficult.
You know how some kids go astray in bad company? If a child psychopath has joined a gang , he may commit crimes like murdering or so because that is what would be required to blend in. Now if he is rehabilitated, he would come to see that his previous adopted behaviour does not align with the social construct of society. To blend in he would now have to change his behaviour , become socially responsible. So he gives up his criminal inclination without any relapse. I think it all comes down to what environment they are exposed to any time in their life, not that different from neurotypicals.
Yes, that's absolutely true.
Very interesting! I find myself underestimating the psychopathic minds’ emphasis on self-interest, all the time. I wonder what responses (and thoughts) one would get if comparing a range of psychopaths with greatly varying intelligence. I’ve also often wondered a few things:
1. Do intelligence and the biology of the psychopathic brain have some sort of correlation, or do NT’s perceive the psychopath to be more intelligent because the devision-making processes are not encumbered by the (often irrational) influence of emotion? Do we subconsciously (or otherwise) envy this? Is it projection?
2. Are psychopaths more successful at decision-making or less? I think, in this case, the actual choice to be made, obviously, has a huge effect, as would the psychopath in question’s ability to reason out emotions cognitively.
3 I am so curious as to how psychopaths learn to “cognitively feel” and if this just happens as they learn to mask to adapt to society? Does early socialization play a significant role?
I must commend you for approaching this subject. I think it’s likely to get less “flack” because you are writing on a platform that has your regular readers (whom I find to be a thoughtful, logical bunch - yay). I can imagine some readers who approach this essay with a closed mind or are a bit blinded by religious zeal, may definitely misinterpret it. You are brave to do so and I applaud your “desire” to improve the understanding of your brain/experience (and similar) as it relates to the massive body of ignorance out there.
By the way, you need to replace a few periods with question marks, as your writing has some, perhaps rhetorical questions, but questions nonetheless. Just a bit of punctuation perfection needed (and I say it not out of a place of superiority, not at all).
I addressed the genius psychopath myth here:
https://athenawalker.substack.com/p/the-genius-psychopath?utm_source=url
I think that decision making is going to depend heavily on whether they are low functioning or not. If they are, I imagine impulse control issues will get in the way of sound decision making. If they are high functioning, and very logical, they may be better at it than average. It depends on the person.
Well, cognitive feelings aren't really a thing. If you are referring to cognitive love and trust, with cognitive love is it a matter of seeing what my SO needs and doing those things. He is wanted in my life so I make it a point to make sure he has what he needs and wants.
Trust is a different beast really, because it is basically watching a person over a very long period of time, seeing who they are as a person and how they treat those around them in a variety of roles, and if they demonstrate that they are worthy of trust, I will grant it to them in increments.
Hm... that's supposed to be Grammerly's whole job...
I have learned a couple of very valuable phrases in my life, "That decision is above my paygrade" and "What's my motivation here?"
If something isn't in my job description and I have no up side for doing it I'm going to continue to observe just for the entertainment value.
Yup, same. I have used both of those myself
Fantastic article! Spot on!
Thank you
For neurotypicals, I think it's so difficult to imagine what life is like with oxytocin-absent and other-tamped-down emotions, that most of us simply fail to imagine it. And yes, Athena, I believe you are right that it's like the morality question posed to atheists by God-believers: If you don't believe in God, why wouldn't you have sex with everyone and steal from your neighbors, etc?
(Being an atheist myself, I completely understand why we don't. Partly, like you, I don't see any upside to it -- and partly I agree with your golden rule principle, that if I don't want it done to me, I shouldn't go around doing it to others. Ie, Be and create the world I want to live in. Perhaps I'm a tad psychopathic on this score. But if your only reason for not doing "bad things" is that some white-haired all-powerful critter in the sky is going to punish you, well, that seems very immature to me. For me, morality and ethics are a matter of thinking through my values, and living by them.)
We NT's fail to imagine that together with the absence of guilt, shame, and similar inhibitions, there is also an absence of rage, lust, jealousy, greed, and desires for revenge -- the motives of perhaps 90+% of all murders. (Well, perhaps y'all psychopaths might experience greed? Not sure that's actually an emotion as opposed to a motive.)
Though as motives for murder are concerned, we're still left with covering up having committed a crime. Which would be based on fear of exposure. Dunno how such a fear or motive would fit into psychopathic realities.
If the only reason someone doesn't act is because they are worried about punishment, then your actions are not pure. They are tainted by the thirst for a reward in the afterlife.
No matter what religion, thoughts do matter, even if people don't think so.If you do not steal from neighbours, but fantasise in your mind, you will very likely not get the reward you thirst for in the afterlife.
Baby Steps to purer intentions.
"who am I to make that choice. Their lives are inherently valuable as I stated, but they are not more valuable than the traveler that would lose his life, and I as the surgeon would determine that it was less valuable. That’s not my place. if I want the value of my own life respected, I must respect that of others. That to me is a logical decision. It is unfortunate for the five patients, but their existence alone is not enough to defer my estimation of life and its value."
Fascinating analysis. And spot on. Along with baby Hitler and erasing all the events and relationships created by WWII's happenings. Along with Alexandra's notion (paraphrasing) "and the consequences might have been worse -- because someone else likely would come along and take advantage of the same political situation, someone possibly more competent in his/her destructiveness than Hitler."
I agree. Stalin could have been a more powerful force in Europe, and communism could have expanded exponentially.
He was dreadful enough as it strands!
Quite true
But even then, doing the surgery doesnt guarantee that the 5 will be saved— we can say that its reasonably likely to heal them but not guaranteed; and were it to fail you would have killed one person for no benefit, and more harm.
Quite true
This one is full of fascinating deep presuppositions
“not something that I as an individual have the authority to do”
Why does that matter?
Or, so what?
“Who am I to say xyz”
What difference does it make if you are, or aren’t the one to say?
There seem to be implicit values claims, based on what axioms?
People have an overestimation as to their value, and their importance in the world. Things play out exactly how they are meant to. I have seen this many times in my life.
It is not my place to decide that all the people created from relationships forged in the fires and aftermath of WWII shouldn't exist, just as it is no one's place to have the mind that psychopaths should not exist. It is a matter of applying the same standard to the world that I expect to be applied toward me.
'Exactly as they are meant to' by what or by whom or in what way? And how do you know that? This 'meant to' is foreign to my thinking. I ask because you seem very certain, and I only know that idea as a religious or spiritual constuct.
There is a way things are supposed to play out. As much as we think we are influencing them, we are simply playing out part.
The problem that I see is that just as it might be meant for the five to die it might be meant for the sixth to come to provide a way out of it. Sure, nature's course was that their bodies fail, but nature's course apparently was also that people invent surgery and this surgeon with a dilemma finds himself here being a cog that enacts what is meant to happen. He will be a conduct whether through passivity or activity. What would make activity less likely what is meant to play out than passivity?
This reminds me a little bit of certain religious folks who say to atheists (who they don't understand), "If you're an atheist, there's just no reason to not run amok and sin like crazy! Why WOULDN'T you just go have sex with and steal from and murder whoever you wanted??" Like seriously, the ONLY reason you behave is because (you believe) God tells you to?
To tell the truth, it does make me skeptical that people behave in the way they think they behave, at least in the NT world. I know I haven't always behaved the way I thought I'd behave in certain situations, sometimes in the favor of "good." I put "good" in quotes because it represents acting on a value (such as loyalty) over something that my logic leads me to (eh, just get a better job). Ultimately I'm very satisfied with the results of my behavior, but it's not like I had some sort of crystal ball or anything.
I wonder if there's some amount of this when people talk about psychopaths (who they don't understand). As in, they view empathy as such a great value and wonderful thing to have, that they think it plays a bigger role in their behavior (which is probably quite complicated) than it actually does.
I know, this may in some ways go against your observations over the years in the ways NTs behave that are actually quite emotional when they would claim it's all logical. And I also am confident those observations are spot on.
Maybe it's just that (as far as I can see) a great deal of things factor into behavior, including the society that other people create (including what consequences there are for getting caught for crimes). Overall it seems silly to me to say something like, "If X were true, then everybody would definitely go out and do Y!!!"
Yes, that argument has always annoyed me, but it tells me a great deal about the people that argue that point.
There might be a different way to look at it.
We would not know without God telling us much children would be rather clueless about prosociality without parents showing them the ropes. And sincee atheism came second, atheists actually learnt from Christians and do not realize they are standing on their shoulders much like Newton didn't start from point zero, but had predecessors. (Except christian moral code is not purely christian and it hints at some ignorance regarding history.)
Or... How can you perceive the rules and not perceive God when that is intertwined. That's like noticing oxygen part of water and not hydrogen part of water.
I think they might be equating atheism with relativistic and nihilistic philosophy. If it was in atheistic circles that thoughts like morality not being the sort of objective stuff like gravitation and fire being hot, but rather purely human convention... That's kinda eroding. There was some dismantling of rules and reasons for rules. It still resonates, I guess. Hmm... Atheism was also feature of communism...
Hubris! That's it. Atheist in the face of empty world is by neccesity the one deciding what to do. To someone for whom God as the source of order is given, this sounds placing themselves into this position. And frankly, current civilization has some tendencies of "I am master of creation and know he best and need to fear no consequences", which atually has root in christian outlook and having been given world to master. To deny God sounds like denial of limits. Meanwhile atheist can perfectly well recognize limits, just doesn't ascribe this sort of entity to them that is described in Bible.
On additional note... Christianity has long history of being a stabilizing element in war torn early middle-ages. That their hands aren't snow white is another thing. That might be in some sense be echoing still too. And I would like to stress inquisition was defo not the only one interrogating and executing people or always aiming only for that.
I am not entirely sure if I am actually providing some food for thought or merely thinking aloud, but here is what I arived at as possible processes behind that stance.
My first thought was five vs one, but I have been confronted few times with how thse experiments are very simplified next to reality and rarely options listed are all the options. And I am asking... Where in that experiment it is said that the organs those five are missing are not those that they have available in the person next to them. All five are dying. If the selection is about the same in all of them, then I determine who has the least chances of recovery (I might feel need to add other things like what I know about their families etc. - who depends on them and stuff - what info is available) and I sacrifice him to save the other four by using him as donor. If the selection is not about the same, then I'll see who has what to give and who doesn't and pick based on that. If I were to arrive to equation two sacrificed for three, that's still a go. If it is three against two, remember, I am not putting to risk that visitor, that's third life. If only one could get an organ from another of the patients... Now I am getting conflicted.
If no available means these five people included and really oly the visitor has them... I am still reluctant to ruin perfectly healthy life for five compromised ones. And all the other factors like how old, living alone of being a pillar of community and there might be stills tuff that subverts it all but cannot be known. I might end up flipping coin. And I might end up not looking at it because I would hate myself for offloading that decision like that. Something pulls at my thought process with "there is a reason why, even if not apparent" and there is also not wanting to be cowed by custom for teh sake of custom. I reached a point where I am not sure how I would decide though I suspect I would choose to risk the catch. I can only tell that if I let those five die I would feel cowardly and if I killed him I would feel like I possibly damned myself in some sense and waited for the shoe to drop. Which is not exclusive with a wisp of satisfaction with being able to go for it anyway. Self-image and stuff.
And all this is still less than wind, because I came across information that while many people answer they would decide trolley dilemma based on number, when put in conditions where they have to make hard choices like that and think them real, they freeze. The reluctance to do proactive thing is strong. And I think fear of punishment might be part of it, but not whole of it.
Your perspective on value makes sense and is thoughtprovoking.
With Hitler... Surprisingly little might change and surprisigly lot too and either way it might be about the same level of nightmare, just different, because WWII is not his work alone. He was only tip of iceberg. Germany was in crisis because of messed up diplomacy and collective unresolved issues, whole Europe was in crisis. If it wasn't him in leadership, it would be most likely someone else. Someone who might go very differently about things, but someone who would be working with the same options as Hitler was. Public would have still the same desires and grievances. It might come later, it might come sooner. But removing him as a baby does not magically douse a whole dumpster fire. And that sort of thinking is not conductive of preventing similar dumster fires of happening again.
I am not certain if I agree with the sentence, "In none of my reasoning am I considering as emotional cause for my action."
It seems to me that "valuing" is also an emotion, though perhaps a cooler one than love or hate. I thought about similar things years ago, and remember concluding that mathematics might be the only thinking I do without emotions... not even sure about that, since math is often beautiful to me -- and I think perception of beauty has an emotional basis.
But then, just because these things feel this way to me, doesn't mean they have to in another brain, I guess? Very hard to know that, but it's also hard to separate such things in one's own brain.. our self-awareness is only ever partial I believe.
Valuing is not an emotion. I know that children have value and should be protected, but I don't like children. It is the logical evaluation of the world that provides me this knowledge, not an emotion.
Hmmm. I don't kid myself that we have that much influence on matters, sure, but my problem is the word 'supposed', I just don't believe in some external purpose or direction at work.