This conversation is closed.
Do we have a right to oppress a psychopathy epidemic?
Saw a great conversation that was already closed so I couldn't weigh
in; wanted to reopen it from a slightly different angle. This is my
first post on this forum and I've only just seen it, so I'm not clear
on the etiquette or how to use the website. I only hope I've tagged
Anyway, the topic... Controversial, I know, but it's something worth
asking. Let's, for the duration of the debate, assume that psychopathy
is an evolutionary trait as oppose to a personality "defect". It's a
pretty common theory and it makes sense.
Looking at psychopathy as a condition from an evolutionary
perspective, it's likely to become more and more of a dominant
disorder over time. Yes, to us, the psychopath is less than pleasant
as a character. But they do rather seem to have an advantage over us.
Maybe we should all just lay down now, accept their dominance and let
them establish a unified pathocratic state under which we can all
Ok, I'm being ironic. But the point still stands. To homo
neanderthalensis, his freaky cousin the homo sapien was an aberration.
something to be culled and exterminated. I think we're all in
agreeance that extermination is a little extreme at the moment, so
we've resorted to enforcing ridiculous court-mandated "treatments" for
the "condition" of psychopathy. It's pretty safe to say that this has
been ineffective, and all it seems to do is alienate and aggravate the
psychopath, as well as giving him clear motive to turn to agression.
Is this opression? Being locked in a white room because you were born
with a personality that society deems wrong and forced into
counselling sessions with people who could never understand you? You
don't "cure" a psychopath, that's fact. Is there anything wrong with
them? Do we have a right to call them "disordered" at all? Is that an ignorant label?
Seems like we're carrying out the mistakes of every previous
generation of human evolution; fighting the transition. We just do it