This riddle could reveal if you're a psychopath

[Leigha]

A similar link was posted on ''the science forum'' a couple of years ago, and it offers some insight into not only our perceptions about psychopaths, but could it reveal if you're one, too?   I don't quite understand the rationale behind the test, even when explained by some of the science forumists, it still seemed too simplistic to really define the depth of psychopathy. 


https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style...51721.html

[stryder]

The "Trolley problem" has further flaws to it than just defining people a psychopath if they "choose a utilitarian outcome".

What of the outcome where a person chooses to do nothing? (They don't intervene at all, after all if the events unobserved then it's outcome would be by law "an act of god" [although technically there are no gods]. In some instances doing nothing is actually be best outcome as doing something could make it a lot worse.)

I mention this because there are very real world occurrences where the majority of the time people do just that... nothing.

For instance lets say an apartment block is on fire, people can decide to rush in an try to put the fire out or try to evacuate as many people as possible, however in this day and age they choose not just to stand by and watch, but to stand by and watch while filming on their mobile phones the building burn and people being carried out unconscious. They choose to do nothing, it might be that they feel useless or helpless, it might just be that they have rubbernecks (wikipedia.org) (Maybe they set the blaze?!?).

The rationality can be used on what to do in a state emergency, warfare, famine, outbreaks or when an in-law turns up (where a person does nothing out of fear of getting it wrong).

[Secular Sanity]

The "Trolley problem" has further flaws to it than just defining people a psychopath if they "choose a utilitarian outcome".

What of the outcome where a person chooses to do nothing?  (They don't intervene at all, after all if the events unobserved then it's outcome would be by law "an act of god" [although technically there are no gods].  In some instances doing nothing is actually be best outcome as doing something could make it a lot worse.)  

What do you think about viewing the "Trolley Problem" as a game of the gods?

Human Sacrifice; what would be your motivation—to be like God? Is that virtuous or blasphemous? Most Christians would say that we should imitate God’s goodness, not greatness, but let’s explore that, shall we?

If we were to be truly godlike, we’d have no friends, no loved ones—everyone the same. Where would the world be without love? What would be your motivation then? Where is your value now? Numbers? Are we a number—a tool or a utility for the community? Is that our only value—a slave to the many? Kant compares utilitarianism to an English shopkeeper, (no offense, C2).   

This question is popular because it shines a spotlight on our intolerance towards injustice. Like Nietzsche said, 'For' or 'Against' exacts in payment.

Would you sacrifice your life to save five?

Nietzsche says that life itself is inseparable from injustice. In our quest for purpose and meaning, we attempt to measure the value of life, and for the sake of its preservation, we nitpick hierarchies—what is higher, greater, and richer.

Would you take an innocent life to save your own? If so, you might be a psychopath. If not, how could you take it upon yourself to make that choice for the five?

[Syne]

The trolley problem isn't a good measure of psychopathy because it is a wholly intellectual problem. People decide this based on what they think people ought to do instead of what they themselves might actually do. They may believe that the utilitarian greater good is paramount, but they may not be considering the guilt of actively killing someone. There is rarely as much possible guilt in inaction as there is in action, unless the inaction is of a predefined or expected duty, like parental neglect.

Now if they really don't care about any personal guilt, from either choice, that might indicate psychopathy, but that can't be determined by the answer alone.

[Secular Sanity]

"Remorse: Never yield to remorse, but at once tell yourself: remorse would simply mean adding to the first act of stupidity a second."
― Friedrich Nietzsche

A thinker sees his own actions as experiments and questions—as attempts to find out something. Success and failure are for him answers above all. To be annoyed or feel remorse because something goes wrong—that he leaves to those who act because they have received orders and who have to reckon with a beating when his lordship is not satisfied with the results.

[Syne]

The "Trolley problem" has further flaws to it than just defining people a psychopath if they "choose a utilitarian outcome".

What of the outcome where a person chooses to do nothing?  (They don't intervene at all, after all if the events unobserved then it's outcome would be by law "an act of god" [although technically there are no gods].  In some instances doing nothing is actually be best outcome as doing something could make it a lot worse.)  

What do you think about viewing the "Trolley Problem" as a game of the gods?

Human Sacrifice; what would be your motivation—to be like God? Is that virtuous or blasphemous? Most Christians would say that we should imitate God’s goodness, not greatness, but let’s explore that, shall we?

If we were to be truly godlike, we’d have no friends, no loved ones—everyone the same. Where would the world be without love? What would be your motivation then? Where is your value now? Numbers? Are we a number—a tool or a utility for the community? Is that our only value—a slave to the many? Kant compares utilitarianism to an English shopkeeper, (no offense, C2).   

This question is popular because it shines a spotlight on our intolerance towards injustice. Like Nietzsche said, 'For' or 'Against' exacts in payment.

Would you sacrifice your life to save five?

Nietzsche says that life itself is inseparable from injustice. In our quest for purpose and meaning, we attempt to measure the value of life, and for the sake of its preservation, we nitpick hierarchies—what is higher, greater, and richer.

Would you take an innocent life to save your own? If so, you might be a psychopath. If not, how could you take it upon yourself to make that choice for the five?

A god would know everyone more intimately than friends or loved ones, so everyone wouldn't be the same. A god could see the ultimate causes for their faults and love who people truly are. And a god could see the evil brewing in those who, for instance, go on killing sprees without warning.

That's the hitch in utilitarianism. We do not have the perspective to determine the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Would those five lives produce more subsequent good than the one? We have no way of knowing.

If a god exists, it is the ultimate source of morality. So it's pointless to ask what choice a god might make, as that would be moral, just by dint of it being god. So god only passes judgement on the choice. And free will determines that judgement, otherwise there wouldn't be any real choice, nor moral judgement, to begin with. You are free to sacrifice yourself, but you are not justified in ending the free will of another unless they critically threaten someone else's free will, especially the life to exert that will.

---

"Remorse: Never yield to remorse, but at once tell yourself: remorse would simply mean adding to the first act of stupidity a second."
― Friedrich Nietzsche

A thinker sees his own actions as experiments and questions—as attempts to find out something. Success and failure are for him answers above all. To be annoyed or feel remorse because something goes wrong—that he leaves to those who act because they have received orders and who have to reckon with a beating when his lordship is not satisfied with the results.

Is guilt only remorse? Or is guilt an objective/god's-eye moral judgement?

People can obviously know they are guilty without any feeling of regret. Do psychopaths really think they are even guilty of any wrongdoing? I doubt it.

[Secular Sanity]

A god would know everyone more intimately than friends or loved ones, so everyone wouldn't be the same. A god could see the ultimate causes for their faults and love who people truly are. And a god could see the evil brewing in those who, for instance, go on killing sprees without warning.

What is death to a God?

If a god exists, it is the ultimate source of morality. So it's pointless to ask what choice a god might make, as that would be moral, just by dint of it being god. So god only passes judgement on the choice. And free will determines that judgement, otherwise there wouldn't be any real choice, nor moral judgement, to begin with.

Nietzsche’s "Revaluation of All Values," is similar to the question presented in the Gospels of Thomas. When you see your likeness, are you happy?

Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

"Man can become so artful, so superficial, so iridescent, and so good, that his appearance no longer offends."—Nietzsche

But when you see your image that came into being before you, how much will you have to bear? When you realize that your sense of worth is a social construct, not of your own making, can you be your own judge and evaluate your own worth?

That's the hitch in utilitarianism. We do not have the perspective to determine the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Would those five lives produce more subsequent good than the one? We have no way of knowing.

The hitch in utilitarianism is that it promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

[Syne]

A god would know everyone more intimately than friends or loved ones, so everyone wouldn't be the same. A god could see the ultimate causes for their faults and love who people truly are. And a god could see the evil brewing in those who, for instance, go on killing sprees without warning.

What is death to a God?

Are you asking if human death is inconsequential to a god? I doubt it, as human existence entails things a god cannot, as itself, experience.

If a god exists, it is the ultimate source of morality. So it's pointless to ask what choice a god might make, as that would be moral, just by dint of it being god. So god only passes judgement on the choice. And free will determines that judgement, otherwise there wouldn't be any real choice, nor moral judgement, to begin with.

But when you see your image that came into being before you, how much will you have to bear? When you realize that your sense of worth is a social construct, not of your own making, can you be your own judge and evaluate your own worth?

Only devaluation is a social construct. Our native state is one of self-value.

That's the hitch in utilitarianism. We do not have the perspective to determine the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Would those five lives produce more subsequent good than the one? We have no way of knowing.

The hitch in utilitarianism is that it promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

Ahem. How do you determine what choice accomplishes that?

[Leigha]

The trolley problem isn't a good measure of psychopathy because it is a wholly intellectual problem. People decide this based on what they think people ought to do instead of what they themselves might actually do. They may believe that the utilitarian greater good is paramount, but they may not be considering the guilt of actively killing someone. There is rarely as much possible guilt in inaction as there is in action, unless the inaction is of a predefined or expected duty, like parental neglect.

Now if they really don't care about any personal guilt, from either choice, that might indicate psychopathy, but that can't be determined by the answer alone.

Couldn't agree more. I don't understand the correlation between the 'riddle' and psychopathy. Unless it's considering as you say here, that the person just simply doesn't have a conscience to begin with, but how one answers this particular riddle, doesn't automatically determine if someone is personality disordered.

I actually hate this riddle, and reposting it here, makes me remember why. 

[Secular Sanity]

Are you asking if human death is inconsequential to a god? I doubt it, as human existence entails things a god cannot, as itself, experience.

Christ almighty!

Only devaluation is a social construct. Our native state is one of self-value.

Self-value?
Self-reflection?
Self-preservation?
Self-concepts?

Are they not drives and effects arising from an emergent social structure?

Ahem. How do you determine what choice accomplishes that?

How do you determine the value of happiness?

~ ?