My girlfriend sent me a picture of her syllabus for her ethics course this morning. It turns out that my recently published work is being taught in her class (and other classes across North America). It’s in a new edition of an anthology that includes the works of some very famous moral philosophers from around the world.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the idea of benevolent sociopathy, but not writing about it. If I can draft up some writings about normal ethics that can gain this much sway, then presumably I can delineate the meaning of benevolence for those who can hardly conceive of caring for others. I recently crushed another moribund bird’s skull when my girlfriend and I were out for a run. It was entirely white and actually quite pretty; I could think these thoughts while asphyxiating it. In other words, sociopathy is a effective means to mercy. In other cases, the desire to manipulate others and an absence of sympathy can be a means to assisting others without being caught up in neurosis, fear of imposition and so on. Lastly, the infliction of moral retribution is a difficult or impossible task for the guilt-ridden, but not the sociopath.
It seems like the lowest common denominator for benevolent sociopathy, then, is to make use of the symptoms of sociopathy (desire for manipulation and deceit, lack of sympathy/remorse, pursuit of danger, etc.) for the sake of the good, where the less-than-courageous fall short of acting appropriately. The sociopath has no shortage of courage, since there are no barriers to acting in any way whatsoever, including morally. Indeed, many heroes are depicted in this light, with these personality traits, in fiction and movies. The question of whether or not we ought to praise the moral hero for helping out those he doesn’t care for is typical to classic Western movies, such as Stagecoach.
Super duper proud. Although I spent the majority of my day in my parent’s basement, so my sense of accomplishment may be a little skewed- but this seems like a pretty big deal.
