I’ve always liked to tell this particular joke: what do you call a legless chicken? Well, you still call it a chicken. If I were to chop off your legs, would you still be yourself? Or would you become an entirely new species without legs? Unfortunately, our ancestors have never had any humour for banter like this to understand the jest’s niceties.
People have been ostracised for being different. What of the women who were knowledgeable with medicinal properties of herbs? Cast them unto stakes and have them burned alive. What of the native Blacks? Brand them and own them as slaves. What of the atheist who doesn’t believe in the divine? Bind him in shackles and have him stoned to death. So you see, people never did appreciate others for being different. Instead, some have feared others for knowing things they did not; some were jealous of others having things they did not; some just wanted to flaunt their “power” and bully others; some were sadistic and needed a patsy to vent their vehemence on.
What of today? While the treatment towards the different is not as fatal as it was in the past, it is still as abhorrent if not worse. Nowadays, societal perception has set a moral standard that everyone is expected to follow. It is not solely the fault of government; now, those who were preached to are now preaching. Your neighbours, kith, and kin will all now shun you if you were to play the devil’s advocate and say, “Well, I think stealing is right if I can do it with no consequences”. If you were to be contrary to the accepted moral standards of society (or just the people around you), you will likely be ostracised. This poses a problem for the more amoralists, namely the sociopaths -though it is unfair to call them as such.
What are sociopaths? To quote the Oxford Dictionary definition: : “a person who has a mental illness and who behaves in an aggressive or dangerous way toward other people” The supposed “mental illness” is more specifically known as Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD). According to MedlinePlus.gov, the US National Library of Medicine website, “ASPD is a mental condition in which a person has a long-term pattern of manipulating, exploiting, or violating the rights of others without any remorse. This behavior may cause problems in relationships or at work and is often criminal”. If we were to think more critically, we will realise that these symptoms appear to be more of arbitrary choice rather than being legitimate symptoms. It appears that “sociopaths” just foster amoralistic beliefs rather than it being an actual condition. I see this as a proof of an attempt to contain radical views -but of course as Carl Sagan says it, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and I will be expressing why and how the “sociopaths” have been marginalised and spurned by society unjustly.
Are all sociopaths criminals? No, they are not. M. E. Thomas -a pseudonym- is a self-proclaimed “sociopath” discusses his success despite being sociopathic. In the writer’s book Confessions of a Sociopath: A Life Spent Hiding in Plain Sight, she says, “it's in a sociopath's best interest to appear ‘normal’.” She goes on to say how, by blending in, she was in a better position to manipulate others without arousing suspicion. Manipulating others; isn’t that too an immoral act? Well, if that was true, everyone would be considered sociopaths. In an interview by Business Insider with a sociopath who calls himself David, he says that the ASPD diagnosis is only an invisible label. He further adds that with the way society works, there are many ways for a sociopath to end up in jail; however, if one is able to keep his amoralistic views in check, he will be a great leader. It is Machiavellianistic though it's not a crime for being outrageous. “The end justifies the means”, though not a quote by Niccolò Machiavelli, encapsulates the amoralistic view very well. It is one’s own prerogative to choose to prioritise reason over moral ethics; one should not impose his moral beliefs on others. If you choose to be amoral, so be it.
Why do people not condone amoralism? I mean, clearly people do not appreciate amoralism and therefore ostracise sociopaths for it. So what’s the cause of their distaste for it? As aforementioned, people ostracise people for being different. They may be afraid of them or jealous of. I can easily see it in the perspective of someone who feels threatened by sociopaths; imagine what you would think: this guy, he appears pretty amiable at first glance but, he must be scheming something; will he use me as a patsy? He may fool me into doing something wrong, I must steel myself. Hold on; wouldn’t the best way to prevent being tricked or harmed be to remove him? Yes, I shall gather all those who feel the same and gang up on him and banish him. It is a rational reaction towards the appearance of a new and dangerous being, we must all agree. Survival of the fittest, right?
So, how does society remove the sociopaths? They brutally diagnose people with ASPD so as to condemn it as wrong and unnatural. It plays on the emotions of the sociopaths by telling them that there is something wrong with them, maybe a factor for driving some to insanity -though I cannot say for sure. If I were to go up to you, diagnose you with a supposed mental condition for the ability to be able to realise loopholes and exploit them, and then condemn you for it, calling you all sorts of names: abnormal; a menace; dangerous; despicable. How would you feel? I think that such labels that provoke people are the cause for sociopaths to be inclined to crime; I mean, if you were spurned like that you too would have vehement sentiments. It is my strong opinion that sociopaths are not inclined to committing crime -note my definition of crime is in the legal sense and exploiting others outside the letter of the law is not inclusive- because of the ability and calling to take advantage of others but because of society labelling them as evil creatures.
Is amoralism truly wrong? Is it wrong to take advantage of others? I think that the answers to these questions are not definite because they depend on one’s moral convictions. If i was a consequentialist, I would abhor any ways that one might take advantage of others. However, if I believe that nothing is more important than personal benefit -the egoist outlook- I would have no conscience qualms about stealing from the poor to become richer, for example. Even if you firmly believe in not taking advantage of others, can you candidly say you have never done so before? How many people can you name who you do not think have done such acts before? You can probably count them with your fingers. People do so all the time, so what makes the sociopaths more condemnable? Who are you to criticise others for the same acts you do? Even if you do not, what gives you the right to judge others if you do not truly understand them? Another person’s choices is his own business, one should not poke his nose into others’ affairs. I entreat you not to denounce others’ personalities and choices no matter how despicable they might be to you. Everyone has different priorities: misers; lovers; gamers.
Society imposes on us of what is expected many a times -from what is the idea of a successful life, etiquettes, moral standards, et cetera. Nobody likes to be forced to be someone they are not, we should think on this poignantly if we have ever done such unto others. Sociopaths are normal people like you and I, just that their convictions may differ. If you are afraid or threatened by the chance of being collateral damage, you ought to work harder or just don’t fall for others’ subterfuges and skulduggery. It is a toy-eat-toy world, to quote Woody from Toy Story. Whether you sink or swim should be on your own ability and not to eliminate the heretics by labelling them with ASPD and spurning them for it.
Comments
Post a Comment