Rules, What I think

I think rules are so deeply rooted within us, there's bound to a large divide between those who are for and those that are against the concept. I consider myself to be Libertarian, which means I favour economic and personal freedom.

Rules in their basic form aren't a human thing, or even a declaration of sentience. There are rules in ant colonies who's lack of sentience or intelligence may as well be a type of computer developed by nature. The concept of good and evil shouldn't really apply in this case.

Rules as a concept, were not designed to give control (Though in some species control means order), they were designed to create order in society. It is natures way of causing a balance in what would otherwise be a very chaotic world.

Rules, like Religion, or Democracy can be manipulated to a minorities gain. This selfish attitude most certainly is bad!

A rule to say “You must give your private confidential information to us or get fucked in the ass by our prison guards” is different to the MORAL rule saying “Don’t kill or your life is gonna get fucked” which is, obviously, reinforced by human's acquisition of rules. They call it law to stop it sounding like something you’d hear in a playground, and to be respected as a higher being. You end up being coerced into respecting those in the law as part of a greater good, as if law is a God living through their transcendent existence.

WE as a collective society have all led to that, by agreeing with them from anything in our lives that gives them control over us, and it gets increasingly easy to do so. But… It’s an entirely natural process, and nobody is to blame. It’s a tribal mentality, with one group having to rule over the other. It’s comparable to a race war when considering the nature of the discrimination that actually goes on. As a part of things to settle in this universe, everything has to be balanced. This is similar to the reason that the rules came into being in the first place, that society manages to settle. There are people who follow the law for the sake of following the law (Influenced by upbringing, genetics and decision) and end up being the law to one respect. You then get those that swing the other way. I don't believe either type of belief makes one a better or a worse person, it just reflects the decisions they decide to make. It is the motives of the people that are in each dividing force that defines their moral conduct. For instance you could get a greedy corporate manager that makes money by legally stealing off the country (Think Occupy whatever), or you can get a standard criminal that steals off people when their back is turned. They are both the same, they just do their crimes in a different way. (Though stealing is more of a  complex issue than this to me and I haven't gone into it here in detail, so it's purely a simple example)

Such selifsh attitudes are what leads to horrible abuse of rules, but rules themselves are natural, a neutral thing. They stop us from living in our own heads being completely mindless of anybody else's awareness. They create trust, integrity and respect. They enable two people of different attitudes to be comfortable with each other, they promote self growth. They are a foundation to society. The bad rules we’re talking about is a foundation to totalitarianism.

Is it morally incorrect to use or manipulate a sociopath?

People I have difficulty with understanding are sociopaths. But I won’t find that out until later so I give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

One may find it difficult to truly understand a sociopath until they have taken the time to piece together their personality and identified the discrepancies that hold the different aspects together.

It might be easier to think of them as a selfish person that doesn't take other people’s human values into consideration, but I don't believe they need to be selfish in a traditional sense of the word. They can care about another person, as an extension of their own ego, rather than the subconscious admittance that another person may also have their own awareness.

Ego definition - "http://www.wordreference.com/definition/ego"
The part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity. 

This would explain a desire for recognition with an inability to comprehend that they could be selfish people rooted deep down.

It could be suggested that all humans are sociopaths when it comes to an instinctive and fundamental level. However the subconscious is supposed to be some sort of barrier between instinct and humanity. We all have selfish survival instincts, but the subconscious manages to keep those instincts where they belong, or self awareness just uses those instincts without question or thought

The feelings that a truly selfless person gets doesn’t need to be an extension of one's ego, a self gratifying measure. Displaying abandonment is not necessarily something required for survival. (Obviously pack mentality may complicate this, but I don't believe everything is like that. A belief that I can't prove, and may be proven wrong in the future. I consider TRUE selflessness to be anti-Darwin. How is this possible if we’re all selfish deep down? Our race just wouldn't survive.

This explains my belief in the importance of the subconscious.

So it’s evident to me that sociopaths must have something missing, not the subconscious, but something I don't really know (Maybe somebody can comment below their ideas). They are people like the rest of us, and alienation is not the purpose of this at all! I’m establishing what I believe construes  the difference between a sociopath and a non-sociopath. Whatever you decide to do with this, whether it's to fuel your underlying bias, or to take this with a pinch of salt and adopt a thought you might agree with is up to you.

I have a friend that’s a sociopath, and we get on most the time. It’s a bit odd sometimes knowing his connection to me may based on something I don’t understand, and possibly based upon something within his own ego boundary, but I’m cool with that.

The issue is that I don’t know if our friendship can be of the same type as some of my other friendships. I know that he has stolen from me, and has no trouble in lying about it, but I know he’s not doing it because he’s a malicious person. He doesn't hate me and he hasn't done anything nasty because it's not in his interests at all. I just have to make sure that he can’t steal from me, or take advantage of me in any way. Once I have established clear boundaries on what he can and can't do (And he’ll know about it if he breaks the boundaries), there is no possibility that he’d be interested by using me in that way. This would be the case whether he wanted to breach the boundaries or not. It's important to make sure you can't be manipulated by anybody, regardless of their personality etc.

This is a question that has been bugging me for a couple of weeks now… Is it morally wrong to manipulate a sociopath? Keep into consideration the drives that this person has. As long as he’s content, then there’s no problems on his end. So surely if I was to give him what he wanted, in exchange for anything he can give to get what he wants, it would be acceptable?

It could seem like an infringement of his human rights because it's a concept that could be considered degrading, but think of it like Feminists disagreements with the Porn Industry. Because he is thriving, doing something that he wants to do, it’s a glorification of his rights?

Please give your comments on your thoughts on the subject, and let me know if I’m way off the mark (Or if I’ve said something right!)

Update! - 18:30, 04/11/12

I was having an IM conversation with a close friend on the subject, and he had these views. I've copy pasted the convo:

• 17:10

  
  

  "So it’s evident to me that sociopaths must have something missing (that something missing which commonly expressed or referred to as the void, is a lack of emotional development at a set place in time.. though genetics have been said to play a part, it is in my opinion that intelligence and awareness over these issues stop one from acting out in immoral and self destructive fashion) this is empathetic response that the more common sociopath doesn't always have the tools to deal with, cause and effect, and how their worsen their condition and portray them self to be abnormal within the normal community.
• 
  

  17:11

  
  

  a child plays on what they want, through an ultimately self destructive manner is then passed on into the encoding of the developed adult."

  
  

  Later on I asked him whether it was wrong to manipulate a sociopath:

  
  

  
  

  
  

  Him: The answer is yes, you are no better than them, and if that is your intentions you are displaying signs of narcissism, because you are fully aware this person has their faults which they frequently act on, and you are yourself choosing to reach them on the same level, rather than helping them forward from this very toxic cycle of behavior!

  
  

  Me: That suggests that a person doesn't always have to be that way?

  
  

  Him: Of course! They never learnt to act on their ability to be responsible for themselves and their actions enough to acquire self-consistency. It's all about reprogramming the mind, from the unhealthy distortions and correcting them, but only they can correct them! you can only offer them the insight into their behavior and offer the courage for them to challenge themselves! They may have become stuck in a rut of self defeating behavior for so long, they believe they really are as evil as people say, and that gives them less motivation to tackle this issue!