Misconceptions Of Sociopathy

Sociopathy is not defined by outward actions.  No amount of cruelty on its own could ever prove that someone actually is a sociopath.  This is because sociopathy is not a set of behaviors, but an inner loss of conscience, which may or may not be reflected in outward actions.  A sociopath could be kinder and gentler than someone with a conscience (not that kindness and gentleness are morally obligatory on their own), and someone with a conscience could be sadistic and abusive.

The typical person is too intellectually weak to do anything more than simply consult alleged authorities on psychology when contemplating sociopathy, meaning that they do not look to reason to analyze what does or does not follow from the concept of sociopathy on their own.  As a result, they blindly accept whatever non-rationalistic psychologists or entertainment media present sociopathy as.  Sociopathy is therefore misunderstood and unnecessarily feared on a widespread level.

These misconceptions promote irrational and unjust stereotypes of sociopaths while also trivializing the incredible dangers posed by conscience.  Yes, it is conscience people should regard with caution and fear rather than sociopathy: as long as someone who believes conscience reveals moral obligations feels right, there is nothing they would not hypothetically do.  Conscience and its sibling social conditioning can easily lead to more injustices, double standards, assumptions, and cruelties than sociopathy.

Ironically, most people tend to do unjust or selfish things because their consciences persuade them to, not because they have no conscience!  Historical records are replete with individuals who condoned gratuitous killings, systemic sexism that has brutalized both genders, and the worst tortures a human could inflict on another--and they did it because they seemingly thought these things were either morally permissible or morally correct!  Conscience can motivate atrocities of every category.

Even if every sociopath was unjustly violent and thoroughly selfish, this would not mean sociopathy itself is the problem.  It would only mean that every sociopath has chosen to act selfishly.  Even if every person with a conscience was just, this would not mean that conscience is a valid epistemological tool.  Conscience is an emotional/personal sense of moral comfort or discomfort.  It cannot confirm the veracity of moral claims, nor does having a conscience make one a righteous person.

If someone is not intelligent enough to realize these things after reflecting on what does and does not follow from the concept of having a conscience, they can still find that conversations with the average person make it clear that their consciences reflect either subjective feelings or the majority preferences of their society; nothing more can be legitimately ascribed to conscience.  It follows that sociopaths are not only not in moral error for being sociopaths, but that it is ideal for some people to be sociopaths: it is objectively better to be a rationalistic and moralistic sociopath than an emotionalist with a conscience.