Quote:
You are talking about genetically changing someone (permanent and involuntary) as opposed to pharmacalogically (temporary and voluntary). There is a big difference. Just look at lobotomies.
|
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
If this hypothetical tech were invented, choosing NOT to use it would also be a moral/ethical choice.
Speaking of which, the responses seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of not curing psychopathy or sociopathy with a retrovirus. Is that because medicines should not be developed that can potentially change the human psyche and personality? Because that particular ship seems to have sailed... |
@Mental Maden @Maden Mental
"....you are now tackle free for life."-ShoNuff
That's an interesting point.
If a person were to be diagnosed as medically psychopathic or sociopathic, should they be considered competent to decide their own form of medication?
For that matter, should such a retrovirus be available as a voluntary, over-the-counter drug?
Is the issue possible involuntary distribution, or permanence of the effect?
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Quote:
For me it's the combination.
|
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
Is the issue possible involuntary distribution, or permanence of the effect?
|
@Mental Maden @Maden Mental
"....you are now tackle free for life."-ShoNuff
It seems to me that if you had warning that your child had a genetic defect that was likely to force psychopathic or sociopathic behavior upon them and you did nothing, well that would be extreme negligence to the well being of your child(and humanity at large really).
To knowingly leave a child so cut of from humanity seems a fundamental betrayal of parental responsibility.
Mind you the initial question seems to ignore a great deal about how environment affects psychological development. I do not think there will ever be a magic bullet for all forms of personality dysfunction at the level of the genes.
Quote:
Do I think such a 'magic bullet' would be flawless? No.|
Originally Posted by Nemo_Utopian
Mind you the initial question seems to ignore a great deal about how environment affects psychological development. I do not think there will ever be a magic bullet for all forms of personality dysfunction at the level of the genes.
|
Do I think it's still an interesting question because someone, and probably someone within the USA, will give it a try during our lifetime? Yes.
I personally knew a young genius as much as 30 years ago who was interested in working on what he called "a beneficial form of cancer". No idea where he is or what he's up to now...
It's a theme that came up in a D&D 4 game also that I ran, where I took Hickman (not you!) and Weiss' Ravenloft 2 and converted it to the system. In that module, our local Baron Frankenstein expy invents a machine that can extract evil out of people. In my adaptation, his original idea was to extract evil from people, install the evil in helpless, limbless reanimated corpses, then kill those bodies. But then, one of the evil essences (his own, of course) managed to get ahold of a useful body, and then ahold of the device...
Mad science gone awry aside, my group had a great time debating the ethics of having a device in their hands that could literally abolish evil. The fact that one of the party members was a Paladin, and another was Lawful Neutral (dashing headlong at full steam toward evil) made things even more interesting.
Personally, I find it interesting that no one mentioned the possibly deleterious effect of a genetically-derived conscience on the military or law enforcement.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Quote:
Indeed, just look at genetically engineered animals today, they are property. Its not much of a stretch to imagine in the near future that **** labori (or whatever you want to call manufactured **** sapiens and thier derivatives) would be considered the same and outside the bounds of what we consider human rights.|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
Actually one of the things I was thinking was if we actually succeed at developing genetic manipulation on the level the OP is talking about how long would it be before the Japanese started selling real live Cat-Girls as pet/playmates. Genetically bred to be obedient, submissive, low intelligence, and an overclocked libido. And since they aren't human they wouldn't have human rights.
Or take a page out of Heinlein's book Friday, where AP's (Artificial People) are second class citizens that can be bought and sold, but have no rights because they weren't born of a human mother. Another example of that would be the show Space Above and Beyond where Tanks (test tube babies) were mass produced and treated as less than human. Genetics could allow us to rise so very high, yet at the same time we could fall to our worst levels imaginable. |
I knew a guy who worked at Smithfield packing and the things he and his crew did to pigs was enough to make you swear off meat just to make sure you wouldn't burn in hell. I could jsut imagine clones or lab bred humans used for medical experiments or organ harvesting and what thier handlers would do to them.
------->"Sic Semper Tyrannis"<-------
Quote:
Only a true sociopath would lack the emotional baggage to make this decision without any kind of prejudice.|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
The second most important question is
"Who decides what is Evil?" |
Thought for the day:
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment."
=][=
Quote:
Or a computer. If we could trust the programmers.
|
Originally Posted by Slaunyeh
Only a true sociopath would lack the emotional baggage to make this decision without any kind of prejudice.
|
Quote:
Please stop misusing "antisocial". Antisocial refers to being against societal rules. Someone who dislikes socialization and crowds is asocial.|
Originally Posted by Megajoule
Clearly you need to be cured of that antisocial disorder in order to make you a happier, more productive citizen. Here, take this pill and lie back. You won't feel a thing, and you'll wake up with a much better outlook on life. Trust us. We're here to help.
|
The examples:
An asocial person dislikes going to the bar. An antisocial person demolishes the bar because he feels like it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Back Alley Brawler
Did you just use "casual gamer" and "purpled-out warshade" in the same sentence?
|
Here's a question that's been mullin' and creepin' and crawlin' around in my head for a while.
Throughout history, there have been individuals who had every ability, every expectation, of living the good life with no effort. They had respect, loved ones, and even if they weren't rich they weren't exactly poor and suffering. People to whom society gave all, yet who defied society and chose to risk their well-being and lives in efforts to improve society itself, or to benefit others.
To duck the mods, let's keep the name-dropping fictional:
Bruce Wayne
Clark Kent
Peter Parker
Diana Prince
Ororo Munro
...are these people, almost by definition, sociopaths? Some of them have nominally logical reasons for beginning their careers (and practical economical meta-reasons for continuing them) but I think we can think of some corresponding people in Real Life that have done similar things without the benefit of writers writing their lives.
...Irish rock musicians, Albanian nuns, Indian lawyers, French cross-dressers...you get the idea.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Absolutely. Anyone who defies social and cultural norms is by definition a sociopath.
And for the record antisocial and asocial share the same definition.
Quote:
My psych classes say otherwise. And since we're using DSM definitions of sociopath and psychopath, we're using the DSM definition of antisocial, not the popular one.
|
Originally Posted by Frostbiter
Absolutely. Anyone who defies social and cultural norms is by definition a sociopath.
And for the record antisocial and asocial share the same definition. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Back Alley Brawler
Did you just use "casual gamer" and "purpled-out warshade" in the same sentence?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
It's a theme that came up in a D&D 4 game also that I ran, where I took Hickman (not you!) |
Sorry, but you can't do that. I'm here, I'm without peer, get used to it...
Didn't we learn anything from 1950s sci-fi? There are some things man was not meant to tamper with!!! (Cue the theremin)
Seriously, the title of the thread is misleading, because nothing we do genetically is going to abolish evil. It might affect some folks' ability to do antisocial acts, but evil, contrary to Carpenter's Prince of Darkness, is not a chemical reaction. It's a conscious choice (that's why accidentally killing someone is not evil, though it may be many other things). And it's intrinsic to the human species.
Ethically? Well, we could also greatly cut down on antisocial behavior by lobotomizing folks once they've committed it, but most of us would probably be against it.
Beyond that, though, it doesn't take into account the fact that in many cases those antisocial tendencies might also be tied into some positive aspects of the human animal, or that at the very least they might enable us to do things that must be done . Snake Pliskin, for instance, very definitely has some antisocial tendencies, but they also might enable him to save the world...or destroy it (er, sorry, I wanted to write like a movie ad for a minute). Of course, the question there might be if he would've HAD to do anything if EVERYONE in the world had genetically had their "demons exorcised." I dunno...
It's the kind of argument that our geometrically-growing scientific knowledge brings to the surface, though, and not just in cases of good and evil. You mentioned sexuality, and we certainly see it there. It's probably one of the reasons that discussing the CAUSE for one sexual orientation or another has become somewhat verboten in recent times, because it brings up a potentially nasty can of worms. If sexuality is environmental, then theoretically various behavior modifications techniques might be able to alter it. On the other hand, if it's genetic, then eventually we'll probably be able to determine it in the womb, and CHANGE it in the womb (or potentially earlier...or POSSIBLY even after birth with some sort of gene treatment). And there's no way around it, because even if it's a combination of genetics and environment, that means it might be altered with a combination of DNA science and therapy. The question, as always, will be should we...just because we can?
I think I need a beer...
Troy Hickman - So proud to have contributed to and played in this wonderful CoH universe
I'd take your word for it if it didn't concern psychiatry. As far as I'm concerned that whole field is a joke.
Quote:
It concerns psychology as well, you know. And Psychiatry is far from a joke.
|
Originally Posted by Frostbiter
I'd take your word for it if it didn't concern psychiatry. As far as I'm concerned that whole field is a joke.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Back Alley Brawler
Did you just use "casual gamer" and "purpled-out warshade" in the same sentence?
|
Quote:
I'm not sure what you're on about. I think I disagree with most of your setup.|
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
Here's a question that's been mullin' and creepin' and crawlin' around in my head for a while.
Throughout history, there have been individuals who had every ability, every expectation, of living the good life with no effort. They had respect, loved ones, and even if they weren't rich they weren't exactly poor and suffering. People to whom society gave all, yet who defied society and chose to risk their well-being and lives in efforts to improve society itself, or to benefit others. To duck the mods, let's keep the name-dropping fictional: Bruce Wayne Clark Kent Peter Parker Diana Prince Ororo Munro ...are these people, almost by definition, sociopaths? |
Bruce Wayne expected the good life with no effort. But his expectations were dashed. He is a sociopath. But I'd see him as an exception to the rules.
Clark Kent had no expectations of a good life. He doesn't have any loved ones beyond an adopted mother, and he has nobody's respect in his civilian guise. Society gave him almost nothing -- he works for a living. He's no sociopath.
Peter Parker has even less -- no good job, no family beyond an aunt, and the world gave him nothing at all, least of all respect. If MJ hadn't entered his life, Peter would be one of the saddest figures in the comics. Not a sociopath.
Diana Prince had every expectation of the good life. I'm a little fuzzy about why she left her island to meddle in mortal affairs, so I can't measure whether she's a sociopath or not.
Ororo Munro has a complex history -- orphan, street urchin, then goddess, then outcast, then teacher and leader, now goddess and queen. At times she had reason to expect a good life, but most of the time, no. She's a bit of an egomaniac, but not a sociopath.
A sociopath is someone who acts against the better interests of society, not just someone who defies society's conventions. Being a vigilante in and of itself is not sociopathic.
If you want examples of people who expected good lives but became sociopaths, I can give you a more interesting list:
Lex Luthor
Frank Castle
Justin Hammer
Dexter Douglas
Dexter Morgan
I'd class all but one of those as a sociopath. (A No-Prize to whoever figures out which one isn't.
)
...
New Webcomic -- Genocide Man
Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass slaughter can be hilarious.
Great, lets argue our opinions about that. You go first.
Quote:
Opinions nothing. I can back up the benefits of psychiatry with facts. Psychiatric counseling helps with Gender Dysphoric Disorder as either a precursor to surgery, or to assist those who don't wish to get SRS. Its ability to diagnose ADHD and provide both medicinal and non-medicinal solutions is quite good (from personal experience. I have mild ADHD which I keep under control with physical exercise that helps hone focus, like martial arts.) Psychiatric evaluations of ex-gay survivors have shown the psychological harm those programs cause. Psychiatric evaluations tell the difference between sadness and clinical depression, which prevents over-prescription of anti-depressants.
|
Originally Posted by Frostbiter
Great, lets argue our opinions about that. You go first.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Back Alley Brawler
Did you just use "casual gamer" and "purpled-out warshade" in the same sentence?
|
Quote:
Not sure what expecting a good life has to do with being a sociopath?|
Originally Posted by RemusShepherd
If you want examples of people who expected good lives but became sociopaths, I can give you a more interesting list
|
A sociopath simply has zero empathy. Other people are just things to be used to get what they want and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible.
I don't see Batman as a sociopath. He may be mad but he has empathy. In fact I think whether or not he is mad depends upon how the world he lives in is depicted. In our world I would want him locked away. In a dark world of massive corruption where the good cop is a rarity then he may be justified.
This is a song about a super hero named Tony. Its called Tony's theme.
Jagged Reged: 23/01/04
Quote:
Neither am I, but that's how Kitsune phrased the question.|
Originally Posted by Jagged
Not sure what expecting a good life has to do with being a sociopath?
|
Quote:
| A sociopath simply has zero empathy. |
Batman breaks the rules of society whenever he is depicted as working against the cops or in danger of being arrested. If anyone in a comic describes Batman as a 'dangerous vigilante', then he's being portrayed as a sociopath. Nobody ever described Superman that way.
None of the five people on Kitsune's list are psychopaths. Batman's the only sociopath there, although I don't know about Wonder Woman, and it could be argued that Storm is an edge case.
My list of five people contains four sociopaths and three psychopaths. The ones who are both are the really dangerous people, the true villains.
...
New Webcomic -- Genocide Man
Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass slaughter can be hilarious.
Quote:
Clark Kent can easily find or even manufacture precious objects that would bring him untraceable wealth. Even without that he has a good job at a prestigious newspaper, or prior to that a comfortable existence as a farm boy. He doesn't need to eat or sleep, and he can't be killed or even injured. Yet he goes out of his way to battle people who can injure or kill him, or threaten his reputation and his loved ones.|
Originally Posted by RemusShepherd
Clark Kent had no expectations of a good life. He doesn't have any loved ones beyond an adopted mother, and he has nobody's respect in his civilian guise. Society gave him almost nothing -- he works for a living. He's no sociopath.
|
Quote:
| Peter Parker has even less -- no good job, no family beyond an aunt, and the world gave him nothing at all, least of all respect. If MJ hadn't entered his life, Peter would be one of the saddest figures in the comics. Not a sociopath. |
Quote:
| Diana Prince had every expectation of the good life. I'm a little fuzzy about why she left her island to meddle in mortal affairs, so I can't measure whether she's a sociopath or not. |
Quote:
| Ororo Munro has a complex history -- orphan, street urchin, then goddess, then outcast, then teacher and leader, now goddess and queen. At times she had reason to expect a good life, but most of the time, no. She's a bit of an egomaniac, but not a sociopath. |
Quote:
| A sociopath is someone who acts against the better interests of society, not just someone who defies society's conventions. Being a vigilante in and of itself is not sociopathic. |
Quote:
|
If you want examples of people who expected good lives but became sociopaths, I can give you a more interesting list: Lex Luthor Frank Castle Justin Hammer Dexter Douglas Dexter Morgan I'd class all but one of those as a sociopath. (A No-Prize to whoever figures out which one isn't. )
|
Lex Luthor: understands social norms, never shows hesitation or guilt over the antisociality of his actions. Sociopath.
Frank Castle: understands social norms, never (?) shows hesitation/guilt? Sociopath. Has occaisionally been a psychopath, unable to see the social ramifications of his actions.
Justin Hammer: Lex knock-off (but a good one)
Dexter Douglas: Is this the kid from Dexter's Laboratory? Despite his genius, his brain is still maturing. Probably still clinically both psychopathic and sociopathic.
Dexter Morgan (I missed the last 2 seasons, no spoilers please): seems to have developed both hesitation and a conscience. Still suffers from antisocial compulsions. Inner monologue however suggests that he is only capable of recognizing social cues through rote memorization and great conscious effort. Psychopath, but not a sociopath (as of the end of season 3).
Do I win?
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Quote:
Conceded. However, I am speaking in reference to a lot of things, but in particular a line from Frank Miller's Sin City (the comic, not the movie) where a character says something like, "The shrinks say I'm sociopathic. But I know I'm just evil."|
Originally Posted by TroyHickman
Seriously, the title of the thread is misleading, because nothing we do genetically is going to abolish evil. It might affect some folks' ability to do antisocial acts, but evil, contrary to Carpenter's Prince of Darkness, is not a chemical reaction. It's a conscious choice (that's why accidentally killing someone is not evil, though it may be many other things).
|
Well if the most blatantly antisocial acts cannot be defined as evil, then we can at least call them antisocial. Sociopathic. Psychopathic. Medical conditions. Curable medical conditions. But how far should we go to cure them, and we ready...can we be ready to deal with the consequences of doing so? And where should we draw the line between 'detriment to society' and 'annoying'?
Quote:
|
It's the kind of argument that our geometrically-growing scientific knowledge brings to the surface, though, and not just in cases of good and evil. You mentioned sexuality, and we certainly see it there. It's probably one of the reasons that discussing the CAUSE for one sexual orientation or another has become somewhat verboten in recent times, because it brings up a potentially nasty can of worms. If sexuality is environmental, then theoretically various behavior modifications techniques might be able to alter it. On the other hand, if it's genetic, then eventually we'll probably be able to determine it in the womb, and CHANGE it in the womb (or potentially earlier...or POSSIBLY even after birth with some sort of gene treatment). And there's no way around it, because even if it's a combination of genetics and environment, that means it might be altered with a combination of DNA science and therapy. The question, as always, will be should we...just because we can? I think I need a beer... |
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Quote:
I was just making reference to the fact that a bit of antisocial behaviour might be accepted or even expected from a person fighting to survive day to day, whereas a person with a 'good life' is more clearly behaving outside social norms when they toss their advantages right back in society's collective face.
|
Originally Posted by RemusShepherd
Neither am I, but that's how Kitsune phrased the question.
|
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Quote:
Okay, I understand a little better now. But I think you're mixing the definitions and that's confusing things.|
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
That is the definition that I am challenging here. Many villains beleive themselves to be acting for the betterment of society, and can draw you a road map from here to there. I am proferring an alternative conjecture; what if some people just can't care because of how they are wired, almost literally. And if that can be fixed, should it?
|
Sociopaths do not care about society. They have no regard for laws, customs, and taboos.
Psychopaths do not care about individual people. They have no empathy, sympathy, or mercy.
Your definition of 'villain' is of a person who is a psychopath but not a sociopath, and who was unalterably born that way.
You're also making a distinction about choice. You think some people know the laws but break them anyway, and some people have empathy but kill anyway. I don't care about that distinction. Anyone who has empathy but kills for fun is going to numb their empathy away in short order. A psychopath doesn't display empathy; whether they might once have had the capability for it doesn't matter.
I'm not as rigid in defining villainy or evil; I think they can be psychopaths or sociopaths, or both or none, and some are treatable and some are not. Basically, I don't like your setup. Evil is evil, and whether it's a clear choice or a predestined illness doesn't matter to me. I've already said that I don't think we should 'fix' anyone against their will, so I'm not going to backtrack on that question.
Quote:
|
Let me apply my hypothesis and see what I come up with: Lex Luthor: understands social norms, never shows hesitation or guilt over the antisociality of his actions. Sociopath. Frank Castle: understands social norms, never (?) shows hesitation/guilt? Sociopath. Has occaisionally been a psychopath, unable to see the social ramifications of his actions. Justin Hammer: Lex knock-off (but a good one) Dexter Douglas: Is this the kid from Dexter's Laboratory? Despite his genius, his brain is still maturing. Probably still clinically both psychopathic and sociopathic. Dexter Morgan (I missed the last 2 seasons, no spoilers please): seems to have developed both hesitation and a conscience. Still suffers from antisocial compulsions. Inner monologue however suggests that he is only capable of recognizing social cues through rote memorization and great conscious effort. Psychopath, but not a sociopath (as of the end of season 3). Do I win? |
You correctly pegged Dexter Morgan as a psychopath but not a sociopath. He cares, deeply, about correcting the wrongs in society.
I would not count Frank Castle as a psychopath. He has feelings and recognizes them in others. Whether he's a sociopath or not depends on how he's portrayed; I lean towards saying he is one.
(All of the above, of course, are my opinions and my definitions. I have studied insanity a lot because I write novels about insane people, but I am not an accredited authority on the subject.)
...
New Webcomic -- Genocide Man
Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass slaughter can be hilarious.
Speaking of which, the responses seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of not curing psychopathy or sociopathy with a retrovirus.
Is that because medicines should not be developed that can potentially change the human psyche and personality? Because that particular ship seems to have sailed...
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!