Psychopaths are:
social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets. Completely lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret [1]Some people would prefer the term "sociopath". As far as I know, there is no difference between what the words "psychopath" and "sociopath" are supposed to signify. I think people have started to use "sociopath" because "psycho", so often used to describe those who are psychopathic, is also sometimes used to describe those who are psychotic. And a psychopath is not psychotic. Quite the opposite in fact; the psychopath does not typically suffer from delusions or disorganised thought whereas the psychotic individual does. One could argue that the psychopath is in fact completely rational. [2]
But why care?
Psychopaths themselves don't care about anything but themselves (so I suppose this post might appeal to their narcissistic traits). Those of us with morals should care though because the psychopath does not recognise the morals that we perceive. A psychopath does not so much engage in immoral behaviour as behave amorally. They are incapable of (that is, we say they lack the faculty for) understanding the meaning of morality. Our ethical constraints or requirements are merely arbitrary social conventions to the psychopath and therefore little more than inconvenient obstacles to the pursuit of self-interest.
I had written a much longer post than this but I've decided to hold some ideas back for future posts, simply so as to better organise my thoughts. Next, I'll outline my problem with the arguments concerning morality as put forward by some atheists recently (specifically Richard Dawkins). For now though, I'll finish with some words from the philosopher Bernard Williams which I hope will at least reassure people that my interest in these questions is healthy:
The psychopath is […] important to moral thought […] in the fact that he appals us and we must seek a deeper understanding of how and why he appals us. His importance does not lie in his having an appeal as an alternative form of life [3]
___________________
[1] This definition from Robert Hare, though which text isn't clear on this website: http://www.all-about-forensic-psychology.com/psychopath.html [Last accessed: 24-January-2011]
[2] After writing this, I found that the page from which I got the definition (ibid.) actually confirms this theory.
[3] Bernard Williams, Morality: An Introduction to Ethics (Cambridge: University Printing House, 1972), p24
Posts
I think the difference between the psychopath and the sociopath is that the former can operate within society (can actually observe and adhere to the social norms, or morality) if they choose - generally to their own benefit, whereas the sociopath is not capable of doing so (which is to their detriment). So the psychopath would appear to have a form of empathy, albeit possibly a rational form allowing them to gain advantage when they want, whereas the sociopath is lacking the ability to empathise. Could be wrong though :-)
ReplyDeleteHi P@. That's an interesting distinction to make. I suppose it would fit with the etymologies of each word. "Psychopath" comes from the Greek for "soul" and "suffering", indicating that the deficiency is inside and solely (or soully*) to do with the individual. "Sociopath" was a term invented by George Everett Partridge in the 1930s and bespeaks "social suffering" or "suffering relating to society" — the first of which would fit with your thoughts on the word.
ReplyDeleteI would conjecture (from the second etymological inference, and assuming that both words refer to the same type of individual) that the emergence and adoption of the word "sociopath" has something to do with shifts in the nature-nurture debate at that time. "Psychopath" implies that there's something innately wrong with the person, "sociopath" that there's something wrong with the person due to their background, upbringing, etc.
If that were true "sociopath" would be the more optimistic (or euphemistic) a term as it also suggests the possibility of rehabilitation. However, I suspect this would mean that its also the more politically correct of the two (which would make me a little warier of using it).
____
* Sorry.