Any bad apples here?

[ssaaahmo]

I'm more of a so-so mango kinda guy.

brilliant

 

[kinzokukae]

assuming online tests and self-analysing is trustworthy enough, then i'm almost completely apathetic and pretty sadistic. i'm pretty book smart, so i can logically understand why people get upset at certain situations, but personally, i cannot fathom why people react to some things the way they do. an example that comes to mind is the notre dame fire - i saw plenty of people very upset or crying about it, even though they had no ties to the building. i have no idea why people got so emotional over a non-living thing burning if they had no emotional ties or memories with the place.

 

[madgod]

@madgod
May I ask your reasons for CTB? I've had some violent outbursts myself and always had this lingering thought in my head that if I don't CTB first, I'll probably inflict severe damage on a societal level.

i'm a victim of a lot of abuse and i'm sick and tired of sleepless nights wasted on the trauma of my childhood. i use to fantasize about pulling a columbine (i've been out of school for 6 years) just to make a mess and end my life. really i just want something graphic to leave behind and fuck up the people who fucked me up. at this point i know i want to make it bloody and traumatic and leave a note that points out every single messed up act someone has committed against me and name them just so people living know what i went through.

 

[LastFlowers]

Are you a "bad" person? I'm not talking the "I did bad things and I feel bad about it" kind of bad, as it seems many members can fall into this category. I mean the "I did/would do bad things and feel no remorse" kind of bad.

Not here to judge, but I am curious your reasons to ctb, if you're inclined to share.

Bonus, any actual psychopaths here? Or anyone with high dark triad tendencies? If yes, why do you classify yourself as so? (Diagnosis, online test, etc)

There are plenty here. They display the evidence just as often as anyone would on any other part of the Internet. They likely wouldn't admit to it however. Most people who would gladly call themselves that are wannabe "sociopaths" because they think it's cool.

 

[Skathon]

They likely wouldn't admit to it however.

Anonymously? Why would we not if there is no possibility of being identified or incarcerated? Furthermore, it is just a neurological disorder.

 

[Myforevercharlie]

I'm more of a so-so mango kinda guy.

Bwahahaha

 

[Aftex]

To be honest I would probably say I'm a bad person. I am near enough completely numb to not only my emotions but other people's as well. The only way for me to truly feel anything was by getting an adrenaline rush.

I won't say what I did but it did lead to me destroying all of my friendships, losing my job and ended up spending the last few months in prison although I probably wouldn't have done time inside if it wasn't for my suicide attempt.

They thought I was a danger to myself so remanded me till I had my day in court, thanks to covid that took over 2 months tho :/

 

[Jean Améry]

Depends on the reasoning. If you're in some weird Saw type of situation where if you don't do it, 10 other people die, I would argue you made the right choice.

I would argue the opposite. a) There is no guarantee the 10 other people won't be killed anyway (you'd be counting on someone's word when it's clear they simply have no ethical standards whatsoever) and b) in the case of the infant you're directly responsible for his death while in the second case (the others die) you're not responsible at all since you neither wanted to cause harm nor did anything to make it happen. Plus you'll likely screw up your own life beyond repair if you kill the child which would mean not only turning yourself into a victim but it in turn it could and likely would create a ripple-effect in the form of further harm to those you care about. Not to mention you'd be giving in to evil: maintaining one's own moral integrity in the face of evil is worth far more than any utilitarian calculus.

Even by that standard your suggestion is debatable. Act utilitarianism is crude and usually not applicable to real life. Rule utilitarianism is much more useful. What principle would generate the best result in the end: giving in in such situations or refusing to do what is asked even if means others will die? There's a reason most governments don't negotiate with terrorists: if you give in once you'll likely encourage that kind of behaviour. Which in the end will cause much more harm.

As to the notion of morality being subjective: the great majority of humans will react in the same way to morally relevant situations (e.g. watching someone being abused or tortured will make most people sick). Certain prohibitions are common throughout the world and time. That tells me morality isn't subjective (purely individualistic) but (largely) intersubjective and very much tied to our very humanity. It would be extremely odd if social animals would not have an instinctive aversion to harming their own kind.

Which is why in war the enemy has to be dehumanized before he can be killed. Most soldiers will purposefully miss when they shoot at the enemy unless they've received specific training to the contrary. The same for say full-contact boxing or kickboxing: you won't win matches if you're not willing to hurt and damage the opponent so he/she needs to be dehumanized first and reduced to a set of targets.

Of course there are certain people who do not exhibit these very human reactions: for them things are much more complicated. In such cases I'd advise to strictly adhere to ethical rules and keep in mind that it's in their best interest to at least obey the law as sooner or later illegal and anti-social behaviour will come back to bite them in the backside. This also tends to be true in the case of violating purely ethical rules: screwing people over will generally cause you to become extremely unpopular and despised: a bad result even if there are short term gains.

It's generally a good idea to treat others how you want to be treated yourself. As much for your own sake as for others' benefit.

 

[Epsilon0]

As to the notion of morality being subjective: the great majority of humans will react in the same way to morally relevant situations (e.g. watching someone being abused or tortured will make most people sick). Certain prohibitions are common throughout the world and time. That tells me morality isn't subjective (purely individualistic) but (largely) intersubjective and very much tied to our very humanity. It would be extremely odd if social animals would not have an instinctive aversion to harming their own kind.

I am so glad you wrote this, because it contradicts something I wrote a long time ago on a thread where I argued that moral principles are not absolute, but relative. Even as I was writing that, something in my gut was telling me there was more to moral relativism than met the eye.

Fully emerged as I am in my post-modern way of thinking, I tend to automatically assume all moral principles are relative to the individual or the group. But you are right in noting that humans do agree on certain fundamental moral judgements such as for instance "torturing a child is morally wrong".

I guess a more nuanced conclusion would be to concede that perspective-independent moral judgements do not exist, but that the vast majority of humans do, nonetheless, agree upon the truth value or some moral principles which makes it possible for them to co-exist within the same community.

I think socities would quickly turn into anarchy if humans were not able to collectively decide which acts constitute immoral behaviour and which do not.

 

[FusRohDracarys]

@kinzokukae
Yeah, I remember that. I felt the same, same with celebrity suicides like Chester Bennington and Robin Williams. Now, you mentioned you're almost entirely apathetic as per online tests so I wonder if it had been your childhood home (assuming positive association with it, if not some other cherished place), would you feel differently or remain apathetic?

@madgod
I'm very sorry you've had to go through all that, but thank you for sharing despite how painful it might be. I don't want to sound like some shrink lol but I know it can be hard to talk about personal stuff and I appreciate you indulging me.

@Jean Améry
Interesting perspective, but I'm going to stand by my assessment. I strongly disagree with a lot of the points you make, actually.

in the case of the infant you're directly responsible for his death while in the second case (the others die) you're not responsible at all since you neither wanted to cause harm nor did anything to make it happen.

I don't agree with your evaluation that you're directly responsible for the infant's death. Did you cause it? Yes. Are you personally responsible for it? No, you're under someone else's power, following their orders and you presumably did not volunteer for the position. You are a hostage at the mercy of your captor. Saying otherwise is like saying the bank teller who hands over the money to a gunman who is threatening to kill patrons was complicit in robbing a bank.

There is no guarantee the 10 other people won't be killed anyway (you'd be counting on someone's word when it's clear they simply have no ethical standards whatsoever)

And there's no guarantee the infant won't be killed or you won't be killed either, therefore I don't see what purpose it serves to assume your decision has no bearing in the situation. Worst case scenario, the captor kills everyone and there's nothing you could have done about it. Best case, one person dies and 11 others go free. Unless the captor has no intention of killing anyone themselves but gets a thrill from forcing others to kill each other, choosing to do nothing, which is how I interpret your response, (baby lives, 10 die) does not give you back power in the situation. Further, choosing to save the baby (same result, baby lives, 10 die) makes you as equally guilty of killing 10 people as you would have been of killing the baby. A subtle difference with no outcome effect, but if one is to feel personally responsible for the outcome of the situation, then I can't imagine how choosing to save the baby doesn't equate to condemning the others even if you didn't pull the trigger yourself, so to speak.

Plus you'll likely screw up your own life beyond repair if you kill the child which would mean not only turning yourself into a victim but it in turn it could and likely would create a ripple-effect in the form of further harm to those you care about.

That's quite an assumption. Most people will probably have PTSD to some degree regardless of what they choose, but saying you would screw up your life beyond repair for killing a child is a dramatic exaggeration. Worst case scenario, yes, that's entirely possible. Is it likely? Is it probable? No more so than if you decide to do nothing or if you decide to save the baby, assuming you also have to watch the 10 other people die.

Not to mention you'd be giving in to evil: maintaining one's own moral integrity in the face of evil is worth far more than any utilitarian calculus.

That's your opinion. The way I see it, you saved 10 people. Nothing evil about that. Sucks that the baby had to die like it did, but at the end of the day, I still think this is the right decision. Unless we get into who the people are. Saving 10 miscreants or people who just are leeches on society? Horrible decision. Saving 10 upstanding people who serve their community well? Or even just a hodgepodge of average joes ranging from Maude Flanders to Barney Gumble? The better decision. Remember, these are ten people who have lives. They have parents, friends, maybe kids, spouses, pets. There are people who love them and people who need them. They are people who give back to society (okay, maybe not Barney, but he's got a good heart and hidden talent). These are people who will be missed. If each of these people has even just 4 people who will be hurt by their loss, then that's 40 people hurting for their loss. The baby has no life. Maybe parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, maybe siblings. But it has no friends. It has no role society except to exist for these people. Its loss will devastate those people, but the fallout of its death will be much smaller.

As to the notion of morality being subjective: the great majority of humans will react in the same way to morally relevant situations (e.g. watching someone being abused or tortured will make most people sick). Certain prohibitions are common throughout the world and time. That tells me morality isn't subjective (purely individualistic) but (largely) intersubjective and very much tied to our very humanity. It would be extremely odd if social animals would not have an instinctive aversion to harming their own kind.

Which is why in war the enemy has to be dehumanized before he can be killed. Most soldiers will purposefully miss when they shoot at the enemy unless they've received specific training to the contrary. The same for say full-contact boxing or kickboxing: you won't win matches if you're not willing to hurt and damage the opponent so he/she needs to be dehumanized first and reduced to a set of targets.

The Spanish inquisition comes to mind, where "good Christian folks" used torture devices that impaled or split people open from the crotch area or used instruments that would tear a person's flesh off. And let's not forget slavery was legal up until the 1800s in America, and I'm sure we're all aware slave owners were not kind to their slaves. If I recall correctly, I remember my history teacher saying how in the Caribbean, slave owners got a kick out of putting a lit stick of dynamite in a slave's anus. The Holocaust, of course, where Jews were tortured by Nazis, who did things like performing vivisections and electrocution and all sorts of inhumane experiments. In the Middle East today, women get acid thrown in their face or are set on fire. Consider how many rapists and child molesters there are even in countries that outlaw those things. Look at how popular Game of Thrones was, a show renown for its gore and violence. I recall one scene where a character has rats placed in a bucket strapped with the open end to his chest and hot coals or something were placed on the closed metal side until the rats burrowed through his body. In another scene, a man gets eaten alive by hungry dogs.

I think you're on the mark when you say the enemy has to be dehumanized. That's the root of all of the things I cited above: the "us vs. them" mentality. And that mentality is something that is very inherently human. People are very good at finding the differences and not so good at seeing the similarities. It's nature to be suspicious of what's different from you, and while most people would claim to never harm their fellow person, that's much easier to keep to when you define "person" as "someone like me."

Morality is great and all, till it's the other guy. Then, anything goes.

 

[Varstraben]

Bonus, any actual psychopaths here? Or anyone with high dark triad tendencies? If yes, why do you classify yourself as so? (Diagnosis, online test, etc)

Not a psychopath, because I still feeling regrets, but I can't feel empathy as I should, so it helped me a lot to manipulate others as I want using social engineering when dialoging with someone. I still regret it and that lot of part that why I'm of this kind of forum, but I used this "power" to destroy life of some person that I don't like, and accidentally destroy person that I like only for my own profit.
When you realise what you have done, a psychopath will not be hurt and think that a normal thing, but for me it's was like someone killed my soul. Maybe I should going to jail for that, but nothing was illegal in the fact.

 

[kinzokukae]

Yeah, I remember that. I felt the same, same with celebrity suicides like Chester Bennington and Robin Williams. Now, you mentioned you're almost entirely apathetic as per online tests so I wonder if it had been your childhood home (assuming positive association with it, if not some other cherished place), would you feel differently or remain apathetic?

my home certainly isn't a cherished place lol; i don't think i actually have any places that i'd be upset about burning or being destroyed. with my home, while i'd be annoyed bc i'd have no place to live and some of my stuff might get ruined, i wouldn't be sad about the actual destruction of it O:

 

[Notwinnernotawin]

Are you a "bad" person? I'm not talking the "I did bad things and I feel bad about it" kind of bad, as it seems many members can fall into this category. I mean the "I did/would do bad things and feel no remorse" kind of bad.

Not here to judge, but I am curious your reasons to ctb, if you're inclined to share.

Bonus, any actual psychopaths here? Or anyone with high dark triad tendencies? If yes, why do you classify yourself as so? (Diagnosis, online test, etc)

Nope, but everyone is convinced I'm evil and I deserve everything bad that happens to me. Not even those who call themselves my family would hesitate to get my words distorted just to make me seem bad. Or take what I do out of context. Because in their words, I'm a disgrace, a vagabond, heartless or cold hearted, I'm bad, I'm evil, I'm a bitch, stupid, retarded, and I deserve only the worst. But they, who make me feel this way for nothing are good people. I'm the bad seed. Just me.

 

[soda_pressed]

Not sure if my answer qualifies, but sort of.

I have BPD, and I display a lot of ugly behaviours.
I know the way I act is bad (I've cheated multiple times on my ex for example) but felt no remorse at all because he is a horrid person.

I feel justified in acting this way because I have been beaten down all my life. Trauma is all I know.

I do have a lot of empathy for animals, and I am very loyal though.

 

[RepressedMind]

Sadly(or for the better) I am the type of person who did sonething bad and feels bad. I feel remorseful for the wrongful things I have done, I never felt good about them either and I don't want to repeat it.. I think I have it in me, that possibility to be an uncaring person, but I think then I wouldn't do anything bad, because I wouldn't care to do anything. Like a sort of distanced apathy, where I just detach myself from the world and just observe.., but maybe I am also incapable of that, because I have been feeling empathy and sympathy for too long in my life.

 

[RileyTanaka]

I'm sure there's a fair number of "bad apples" as you refer to it - meaning people who've done stuff that would make a lot of people give pause - robbery, violent crimes, sexual assault. I know it's not nice to think about but consider where we are. There are a lot of reasons why people show up here. I don't think there's any way to accurately gauge that though.

 

[Lost in a Dream]

Sometimes I can be one of those "bad apples", but not always. It really depends on what sort of mood I happen to be in whenever it changes. Sometimes the change can be so drastic that I have no empathy for anyone and then I just want to watch the world burn, but when my mood changes again, it will be the opposite. I'll discover that I have an over abundance of empathy and sometimes I am somewhere in the middle.

I don't know if this is anything that can be fixed with meds or not, but so far, none that I have tried have helped with this (at least not without trapping me in a never-ending depression). Therapy has helped somewhat, I guess, but it doesn't take much to completely undo any progress I have made. I know that the main reason why I am the way I am is because of emotional abuse I experienced from my parents as a kid because they were very angry people (like I am now a lot of the time).

The other reason for being the way that I am is that I trusted some very manipulative and dishonest people that took advantage of me and caused me to feel like I couldn't trust anyone. When I started to feel that way, it didn't take long for that distrust to turn into misanthropy and once that happened, any empathy I had for others slowly disappeared, like water leaking out of a glass because it had a crack in it somewhere. I'm trying to patch up those "cracks" so I can get back to where I was, but I don't think I will ever be able to.

i use to fantasize about pulling a columbine (i've been out of school for 6 years) just to make a mess and end my life.

I've felt this way in the past as well, way back when I was a teen going to High School and even after that when I was at work or college, but then I would experience my mood changes again and then feel so horrible for thinking about those things that it made me hate myself. It feels like there are two people living in my head, even though I know there isn't. It scares me sometimes, tbh.

 

[RepressedMind]

Sometimes I can be one of those "bad apples", but not always. It really depends on what sort of mood I happen to be in whenever it changes. Sometimes the change can be so drastic that I have no empathy for anyone and then I just want to watch the world burn, but when my mood changes again, it will be the opposite. I'll discover that I have an over abundance of empathy and sometimes I am somewhere in the middle.

I don't know if this is anything that can be fixed with meds or not, but so far, none that I have tried have helped with this (at least not without trapping me in a never-ending depression). Therapy has helped somewhat, I guess, but it doesn't take much to completely undo any progress I have made. I know that the main reason why I am the way I am is because of emotional abuse I experienced from my parents as a kid because they were very angry people (like I am now a lot of the time).



I've felt this way in the past as well, way back when I was a teen going to High School and even after that when I was at work or college, but then I would experience my mood changes again and then feel so horrible for thinking about those things that it made me hate myself. It feels like there are two people living in my head, even though I know there isn't. It scares me sometimes, tbh.

I have felt like this as well, but I usually don't like having no empathy, perhaps because I always feel worse afterwards.

 

[Epsilon0]

All this talk about apples. I think I will make an apple pie this weekend!

 

[sadbadpsychogirl]

im probably a psychopath. i have hurt people without remorse and once i feel like someone has wronged me i couldn't care less what happens to them. i am capable of empathy and i always treat people the way i would want them to treat me but i am impulsive and pretty self centered.