What I remember from the lecture was that there are people who experiences no physiological arousal to highly traumatic events, or experience sympathy to others. The example used was that certain criminals show no reaction (remorse, or any pysiological response) to other people's suffering, this include the victims of their crimes. This lack of response seem to be a result of some form of wrongness in their perception. That is, there's something defective in their physiological make up that do not allow them to perceive events the same way as most, which in turn generate responses such as sympathy, etc.
Mind you, who's to say that they are suffering from some form of defection, for all we know it's just another lovely step in the human evolution.
Anyways, the point is that this lack of response to the pain of others does not mean they don't know what's morally right to what's morally wrong. In fact, they often have a heightened awareness of what's socially acceptable. When these people choose to commit a crime, they are in effect employing their free will to decide. It might be harder (or impossible) for them to care for those they hurt, but they do understand perfectly that they are likely to suffer the consequences of such actions. And it's in their free will to decide whether to commit a crime or not.
All of this boils down to the point that people choose to do and be who they are. There's a whole list of reasons as to why people (and myself) wouldn't agree to this, mainly because circumstances often forces people to act in certain ways. But as my lecturer at the time (the bastard) pointed out to us, doing something or doing nothing, no matter the circumstance is still a matter of free will. Each individual decide their own actions no matter the context, it's just that we might choose do do things for purely selfish reasons, such as our own survival rather than that of a stranger.
And this feels like a semi-existentialistic rant on nothing. *sighs*
- Mood:
awake
Page Summary
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Designed by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chasethestars
chasethestars
Comments
Isn't pretty much any reproducible mutation technically evolution? If you only define it as successful mutation, someone without empathy could be successful or unsuccessful depending on their social situation and on their recognizance of it.
On free will:
Many people have compulsive behavior problems which can cause them to decide to do things that hurt others, but feel pain/remorse for their victims. Did the psych lecture cover any of the chemical imbalances that can sometimes override reasoning?
No, he didn't. And dammit now I wish I had thought of that (dislike the bastard, I have major differing views with about g and the human IQ, hell, I pretty much disagree with him on everything). But to be fair he probably would have shot me down by saying that people suffering from compulsive behaviours doesn't hurt others, but rather perform repetitive rituals to soothe their continuous thoughts that result in their high levels of anxiety.
And in regard to chemical imbalances, he didn't even touch the subject, but I can semi answer that. People who -truly- suffer from chemical imbalance (and the only true psychological illness that seem to be caused by biology is schizophrenia, unipolar and bipolar) still make their decision based on -their- personal beliefs. And when they decide to hurt others at the the time of the action, they are still employing their free will to decide based on what they perceive to be the truth.
Overall, it's hard to answer the question when the chemical imbalance is not defined. And if it's defined, well, often evidence dose not support the illness as a result of chemical imbalance. It's more often a mixture of environmental factors and social factors.