Psychopathy And Sociopathy

People sometimes appear to use the terms "psychopath" and "sociopath" interchangeably, as if they do not represent distinct concepts that do not fully overlap.  Sometimes I have seen people loosely use the words in reference to people who do not necessarily qualify as either one.  I have also seen definitions for each which rely on very arbitrary, question-begging criteria, including some criteria which someone could certainly be a psychopath or sociopath without displaying.  An example is when people label someone a psychopath or sociopath after "repeated criminal activity".  How many crimes must one commit to be or become known as a either psychopath or sociopath?  Someone who gives any number offered as a standard has no reason for choosing that number over a different one.  So what makes someone one or the other, a psychopath or sociopath?

A psychopath is someone born without empathy or with very little empathy, capacity for guilt, or moral regret.  A psychopath can exploit, abuse, neglect, manipulate, and discard people without remorse or any tinge of conscience (a sociopath could too, but is not the same as a psychopath).  Someone who tries to persuade the moral feelings of a psychopath might be shocked at the fact that there are no moral feelings to appeal to or redirect, just a cold indifference to moral judgments and the empathy others show.

A sociopath is someone who, by will or by a mixture of other variables, lost empathy during his or her lifetime.  Sociopathy, therefore, is not innate; it is acquired.  While sociopathy shares some distinct similarities with the condition of psychopathy, psychopathy is normally viewed as more dangerous or alarming for this reason.  Because a sociopath (by the definition I provided) actually lived a life with somewhat "normal" levels of empathy before becoming a sociopath, he or she is often not expected to be as outwardly remorseless, whereas someone devoid of empathy and conscience from birth has no recalled precedent for experience of empathy.  Sociopaths may be far more likely than psychopaths to form actual intimate relationships with other people.  Practically anyone could become a sociopath, yet only certain people can ever be psychopaths.

Neither psychopathy nor sociopathy, especially sociopathy,
necessarily means that someone will commit acts of violence or
cruelty, only that little to no feelings of guilt or conscience
will hold that person back from committing such acts should
 they feel like engaging in them.

No, neither a sociopath nor a psychopath is necessarily a serial killer to be or in actuality.  Neither is necessarily a cruel or selfish person.  The absence of empathy or conscience alone does not automatically guarantee violent or insensitive actions, although it would greatly facilitate them.  The latter does not follow by logical necessity from the former.

And, no, psychopaths and sociopaths do not necessarily have any degree of insanity.  Lack of a sense of morality (the sense of which is totally subjective anyway) does not in anyway signify lack of rationality or a grasp of general reality, things which indicate the presence of insanity.  Sociopathy and psychopathy are not psychological or mental problems in the way that psychosis is; one's sensory and mental faculties can work perfectly apart from a sense of morality.  In other words, psychopaths or sociopaths could be extremely intelligent and rational despite having little to no concern for other people.  In fact, they may have a higher chance of being intelligent than people who do not have either condition due to them not having certain subjective, emotive impulses present within themselves.

With the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath clear, I hope to soon explore the issues of psychopathy and particularly sociopathy again soon, answering the following question: does rationalism produce sociopaths?  It is a question I have wanted to address on my blog for some time but have never gotten around to tackling.  If you hear someone accuse another person of either of the conditions discussed here, perhaps the accuser does not have accurate knowledge of how to distinguish and identify each condition.  I, as one might expect, am far more concerned with the ramifications of both for moral epistemology.  Not only is conscience subjective to each individual who has one, but not all humans even have one.  People who view conscience as an effective means by which one can obtain moral knowledge would do well to keep this fact in mind.