Justice, Evil and Psychopaths

[drjekyll]

It is so easy to see evil as a polar opposite to good. On the one hand you have good men, and on the other, evil men. Some people do good with their lives, some do evil.

As far as I see it, this is not true. Not really.

Terry Pratchett makes this point brilliantly in his Discworld novels. It's also a central theme of the book "The Great Divorce" by C.S. Lewis, which is a work of towering philosophical brilliance.

Pratchett's point is this.

Darkness is not the opposite of light. Darkness is the absence of light.

Evil is not the opposite of good. Evil is the absence of good.

The point is this. There is only one universal absolute in the human condition, and that absolute is love. This is because love arises from genuine connections with real people, and as such, love has reality.

Evil, if by that you are referring to selfishness and cruelty, arises from either

a) A low self-worth which makes you see the world in rigid, Manicheistic terms (stark black and white definitions). As such, the things you admire you admire completely. The things you dislike you hate completely. If you dislike certain people or groups of people, your hate for them can become an all consuming rage, and can lead you into doing terrible damage to your fellow man - damage which they, lacking understanding of the real issue you have, would interpret as the acts of an evil person. Taken to extremes this becomes bipolar depression. A good example of someone like this who is commonly percieved as evil would be Adolf Hitler.

or

b) An extremely low level of trust. If you believe that humans are, by their very nature, all weak and selfish, all fundamentally disloyal and unreliable, you will see them as a worthless resource to be exploited. As such, you will have no moral compunction in hurting them for your own material gain, because you see nothing of worth or value in them. As a result, you become detached from others, and form no real connections with them. As a result of this, you do not experience the full emotional range of your humanity, because you are only engaging with others in a very narrow way. Because you only see them as resources to exploit or threats to avoid, you only develop that part of your personality which deals with those tasks. As such, you lack emotional depth. Taken to extremes, this becomes psychopathy. A good example of someone like this who is often perceived as evil would be Niccolo Machiavelli. At the same time, this mindset could also easily be described as amoral, and so it is less usual to find those who exist within it perpetrating grand acts of massive cruelty (like Hitler did) because they are so massively selfish, they just don't care enough about anything to bother with such things.

The important thing to remember is that the human mind builds its own psychology based upon the foundations it is provided with. These two things are not simply attitudes, but entire worlds of thought into which a person can fall. Once inside them, a person's entire world view - all of it - is rationalised in terms of the fundamental assumptions about humanity and the self upon which it is built.

The other thing that is important to remember is that both of these psychologies are built on falsehoods.

This is utterly pivotal.

The psychology of the bipolar depressive is based on an exceptionally low self worth. The fact is though, that all people are amazing. They all are, every single one of them. Because of this, bipolar depression is based on an idea about the self which is, quite simply, factually incorrect.

The psychology of the psychopath is based on an exceptionally low level of trust. The fact is though, that all people have the faculty of selfless loyalty. They all do, every single one of them. Because of this, psychopathy is based on an idea about the other people which is, quite simply, factually incorrect.

It is interesting to note that both forms of mindset - both forms of 'evil' if you will - have the same origin - doubt. The only real difference between them is that bipolar depressives doubt themselves to an extreme, while psychopaths doubt others to an extreme. It's the difference between internal and external doubt.

I think it is very important to note at this point that I believe these medical terms are a big obstacle to people's understanding of these people. Firstly, everyone - and I mean everyone - has moments of low self-worth and generic lack of trust. In those moments, we slip into these mindsets. Everybody does this.

The only real difference between bipolar depressives, psychopaths and the rest of us is that they have gotten themselves lost in these things.

It is very interesting to ask the questions 'how' and 'why'.

The how - they have got lost in these things by basically turning either distrust (for psychopaths) or low self worth (for bipolar depressives) into a kind of ideology.

Bipolar depressives commonly 'play the martyr'. Their suffering, to them, is like a religion. This means that they look for things to despise about themselves, look for reasons to feel derision for their hopes and dreams, and rationalise away any goodness in themselves as worthless because it is either transient or just one more weakness to exploit. They heap guilt and suffering upon themselves day after day, further brutalising their self-worth. They dwell on the pain of the past, and they tell themselves that no-one has suffered as they have. They cling to their pain.

Psychopaths heap scorn on the idea that humanity has value. The weakness of mankind, to them, is like a religion. This means that they look for things to despise, look for reasons to feel derision for others, and rationalise away any goodness in others as worthless because it is either transient or just one more weakness to exploit. They raise their guard more and more against other people day after day, further brutalising their ability to trust and connect. They dwell on their own self interest, and the weakness and hypocrisy of people, and they tell themselves that they alone see the truth. They cling to their contempt.

Why they do it is very interesting though. Why they do it is, to me, the most interesting thing about these people.

Why does a bipolar depressive beat themselves up?

Why do you beat yourself up?

Why does a psychopath build defences against others?

Why do you build defences against others?

Justice.

That is why.

You beat yourself up because you feel you need to be punished. You refuse to let others in because you feel that they need to be punished.

The beating heart of the most extreme evil that the world has ever seen, and the beating heart of all the little evils that you will see around you every day is exactly that thing which politicians and moralists tout above all others.

Justice.

Or, more specifically, punishment.

Even at the extremes of human viciousness and hate, morality is what drives us.

Punishment.

Condemnation.

That, to me, is why some philosophers reject justice. It's not justice you are rejecting. It is the idea of punishment and condemnation as an inevitable part of human morality.

Punishment and condemnation are not inevitable parts of human morality.

Punishment and condemnation are not inevitable parts of justice.

Plato and William Godwin make this point with exceptional clarity. As does Pratchett.

Darkness is not the opposite of light. Darkness is the absence of light.

What if justice simply consisted of rewarding the good?

What if all the evil in the world was based on a simple mistake?

What if all the evil in the world simply extended from a factual error?

What if the wicked were not evil, but simply incorrect?

What if the good could save the bad?

Justice, to you, is a feeling. It is also a concept.

You cannot alter the feeling.

Alter the concept.

Remove punishment from the equation.

Punishment is no part of justice. Punishment is a lie. Punishment is what holds us back.

Punishment is the root of all evil.

Ever Yours

Jekyll

 

[Laura]

What a load of hooey. Do some research. Better yet, get out there in the field and interact with a few psychopaths.

 

[Third_Density_Resident]

I think it is very important to note at this point that I believe these medical terms are a big obstacle to people's understanding of these people.

I think it is very important to note at this point that your severe lack of research is a big obstacle to your understanding of these people [psychopaths].

Pratchett's point is this.

Darkness is not the opposite of light. Darkness is the absence of light.

Evil is not the opposite of good. Evil is the absence of good.

Pratchett is wrong. Clearly he forgot about things called "black holes". Whereas normally light destroys darkness, in the case of a black hole, the reverse is true. Black holes "suck" light towards themselves, in effect destroying light. Darkness, in this case, is not the absence of light; and is an entity in an of itself. Bear this in mind when thinking about evil.

 

[henry]

It is interesting to note that both forms of mindset - both forms of 'evil' if you will - have the same origin - doubt. The only real difference between them is that bipolar depressives doubt themselves to an extreme, while psychopaths doubt others to an extreme. It's the difference between internal and external doubt.

Doubt? Have you ever run across the idea put forward in the books of Carlos Casteneda of the "predator's mind"? You might want to look it up. Or the esoteric idea that we are a jumble of contradictory and confused little 'I's that change from moment to moment? Or the Gurdjieffian idea that we are mechanical, incapable of acting until we create something real inside of ourselves that can act?

Simple self-observation will confirm these ideas, or at least present you with evidence that they have a high probability of being true. So if we are a mechanical bundle of programmes, if our neeed to feed off of others it represented in the idea of having an "inner predator", then wouldn't it seem like a good idea to have a certain amount of self doubt?

Doubt is healthy and necessary when it is directed at one's own machine. You seem to be casting it out in its entirety.

As for psychopaths doubting others to an extreme, they don't give a damn about others. They do not suffer from doubt at all, neither about themselves or others. They are incapable of doubt.

The only real difference between bipolar depressives, psychopaths and the rest of us is that they have gotten themselves lost in these things.

Boy, do you need to do your homework!

Wake up and smell the coffee! As Laura says, go out and have a few experiences with psychopaths and see how well your theory helps you.

You'll be food. And when they are done, maybe you'll be ready to do some research beyond the bounds of Terry Pratchett and C.S. Lewis.

 

[Joe]

The only real difference between bipolar depressives, psychopaths and the rest of us is that they have gotten themselves lost in these things.

Your thesis is not supported by the available evidence. It is very appealing to want to think that there is really no such thing as innate evil, evil by and for itself, but to reject the facts because they are not appealing is a mistake, and one which humanity, having posited discourses such as yours for millennia, appears to be about to pay a deadly price for. This is not punishment, but rather the natural result of persistent ignorance and denial of the reality of evil.

Joe

 

[drjekyll]

What a load of hooey. Do some research. Better yet, get out there in the field and interact with a few psychopaths.

I have actually done quite a bit of research on the moral condition of the human animal in general, and I've also looked quite deeply into the psychopathic condition, including having met psychopathic people in real life, and also having discussed the fundamental nature of human morality with them in depth. They are indeed a scary group, and the internal world of thought which they occupy is terrifyingly dark and twisted.

Here, for instance, is a link to my discussion forum where I have a long and protracted debate with a self confessed psychopath about the meaning of life. It gets quite heated, and it is pretty long, but you might find it interesting. You might need to register to check it out. Here's the link:

http://brotherhoodofchange.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=21

I think it is very important to note at this point that I believe these medical terms are a big obstacle to people's understanding of these people.

I think it is very important to note at this point that your severe lack of research is a big obstacle to your understanding of these people [psychopaths].

I see what you did here. You scamp. Again, I do have experience with these people.

Pratchett's point is this.

Darkness is not the opposite of light. Darkness is the absence of light.

Evil is not the opposite of good. Evil is the absence of good.

Pratchett is wrong. Clearly he forgot about things called "black holes". Whereas normally light destroys darkness, in the case of a black hole, the reverse is true. Black holes "suck" light towards themselves, in effect destroying light. Darkness, in this case, is not the absence of light; and is an entity in an of itself. Bear this in mind when thinking about evil.

This is a good point. It's true that psychopaths construct an internal world of thought which is critically destructive in many different ways. The fact that the internal worlds of thought we inhabit are indistinguishable, for our individual perspective, with reality itself means that the psychopathic deification of contempt leads to destructive interactions. What I mean by this is simple.

Our minds are world of thought which (whatever else is true) facilitate interaction with the wider social and physical environment. These worlds of thought revolve around core issues of self-worth and the value of humanity in general. At this core level, we are capable of dehumanising people - this is something that is a universal human trait. We fight against it in the modern world, as we should - however, I would argue that this trait can be magnified to form the foundational concept of a person's world view.

This would obviously be something that would need to take place very early in a personality's development. The article The Partial Psychopath by Elliott Barker, and B. Shipton (http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/partial_psychopath.html) contains the illuminating comment:

"For about half a century, we have known one unfailing recipe for creating psychopaths -- move a child through a dozen foster homes in the first three years."

I guess that the core argument of the above piece is simply that psychopathy is not an inherited trait in a genetic sense. I believe that psychopathy is a condition which occurs when natural processes within the human mind are warped during upbringing.

Essentially, I would argue that a psychopath is someone who has raised their natural moral defences against exploitation to such a degree that those defences - the dehumanising of others being a key one - become core to the actual personality of the adult.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean to insult anyone or cause a ruckus. My only point is that the phenomenon of psychopathy can, I believe, be accounted for in its entirety throught the normal dynamics of human morality under aberrant developmental circumstances. I'm not excusing these people, belittling the problem, claiming that they can be easily 'cured' or downplaying the destruction that they wreak upon the world in which we live.

At the same time, I do believe that an understanding of the formative dynamics of the psychopathic personality might be of great use to those of us who wish to end the destructive influence that selfishness has on the world. Perhaps it is a forlorn hope. Nonetheless, I do not believe that there is a key difference between the psychological dynamics that underlie conventional selfishness and the psychological dynamics that dominate the mind of what we would, medically, class as a psychopathic person.

My issue with the medical classification of psychopathy is simply that it separates them into a group of people who can be seen as distinct from the normally self-centered. I understand why this distinction exists, but I believe that psychopaths are one extreme of a continuum of moral consciousness of which we are all a part. I believe that there is a part of this mindset in each of us. In psychopaths it is grossly exaggerated.

It is interesting to note that both forms of mindset - both forms of 'evil' if you will - have the same origin - doubt. The only real difference between them is that bipolar depressives doubt themselves to an extreme, while psychopaths doubt others to an extreme. It's the difference between internal and external doubt.

Doubt? Have you ever run across the idea put forward in the books of Carlos Casteneda of the "predator's mind"? You might want to look it up. Or the esoteric idea that we are a jumble of contradictory and confused little 'I's that change from moment to moment? Or the Gurdjieffian idea that we are mechanical, incapable of acting until we create something real inside of ourselves that can act?

Simple self-observation will confirm these ideas, or at least present you with evidence that they have a high probability of being true. So if we are a mechanical bundle of programmes, if our neeed to feed off of others it represented in the idea of having an "inner predator", then wouldn't it seem like a good idea to have a certain amount of self doubt?

Doubt is healthy and necessary when it is directed at one's own machine. You seem to be casting it out in its entirety.

Ok - this is a very interesting issue. I'm not a massive fan of doubt in general, it's true. I believe that a certainty of purpose built on strong moral foundations is essential to sorting out the problems of this world, if they are to be resolved. At the same time, doubt is often necessary to find truth, and the ability to question one's self with total honesty is a key issue.

However, the kind of doubt I am talking about here is something different. In my discussions with psychopaths I've discovered a very interesting thing - they seem to defend their contempt of other people in exactly the same way as the dogmatically religious defend their own core beliefs. This leads to the interesting idea that perhaps what we are looking at is a personality in which doubt of human goodness in general has become a core article of belief.

As for psychopaths doubting others to an extreme, they don't give a damn about others. They do not suffer from doubt at all, neither about themselves or others. They are incapable of doubt.

Not in my experience. I'd say that they often don't give a damn about other people because they are totally and utterly convinced that people are worthless. This, again, is a foundational part of their identity.

The thing is, often psychopaths are not clever or introspective enough to articluate their own internal belief structure. It's not something they think about very often, in my experience. It's rare to find one who'll really chat in depth about it.

The only real difference between bipolar depressives, psychopaths and the rest of us is that they have gotten themselves lost in these things.

Boy, do you need to do your homework!

Wake up and smell the coffee! As Laura says, go out and have a few experiences with psychopaths and see how well your theory helps you.

You'll be food. And when they are done, maybe you'll be ready to do some research beyond the bounds of Terry Pratchett and C.S. Lewis.

Well, again, I've done some homework on this. And yes, it does extend somewhat beyond Narnia and Discworld.

One thing I'd like to just state is that I'm not belittling the condition, the intransigence of the psychopath or the problem that profound selfishness represents to the world in which we live. I am just postulating that it may have a cause more to do with the warped development of factors present in each of us than with a simple genetic explanation.

Essentially, I believe that such an explanation is pretty simplistic. I think that we can indeed understand the kind of dynamics that go into the formation of a psychopathic mind.

The only real difference between bipolar depressives, psychopaths and the rest of us is that they have gotten themselves lost in these things.

Your thesis is not supported by the available evidence. It is very appealing to want to think that there is really no such thing as innate evil, evil by and for itself, but to reject the facts because they are not appealing is a mistake, and one which humanity, having posited discourses such as yours for millennia, appears to be about to pay a deadly price for. This is not punishment, but rather the natural result of persistent ignorance and denial of the reality of evil.

Joe

Well here we are, at what is perhaps the heart of the matter. Is evil real?

In practical terms, yes. Yes it is. Just as in practical terms, shadows are real. We can see them, we can interact with them (in a game of hide and seek, perhaps) and they can hurt us (if we stub our toe in the dark or something).

At the same time, a shadow is simply the absence of something. It is the absence of light.

What I'm getting at is this - evil is very real to the psychopath's victim. In that we are all victims of this mentality and it's pervading grip on the world in which we live, it is real to us. But psychologically, it is a twisting up of the normal moral dynamics of a person, and as such, we are all of us capable of psychopathic behaviour. Moreover, not only could this represent a way to combat the phenomenon in some way, but also to understand and demystify this thing that we refer to as 'evil'. Instead of some grand spiritual enemy, we could instead look at it as something with function and form - not to belittle it, but to demythologise it so that when we fight it we do not feel overwhelmed by it's scale.

 

[Joe]

What I'm getting at is this - evil is very real to the psychopath's victim. In that we are all victims of this mentality and it's pervading grip on the world in which we live, it is real to us. But psychologically, it is a twisting up of the normal moral dynamics of a person, and as such, we are all of us capable of psychopathic behaviour.

We are all capable of psychopathic behavior. Worse still, we are all susceptible to be "psychopathised" as Lobaczewskis describes in such clear detail.

But the important point is this: while anyone can act in a way that is somewhat psychopathic, there are individuals on this planet (some say 6% of the population) who are unable to act in a way that is truly human. They are unable to feel empathy for another human being. They are essential psychopaths. They exist, that much is clear. That they tend to rise to positions of power is also clear. That they currently hold the reins of power on this planet is very likely. For us that means facing into a future that is extremely precarious.

Joe

 

[Pierre]

I guess that the core argument of the above piece is simply that psychopathy is not an inherited trait in a genetic sense. I believe that psychopathy is a condition which occurs when natural processes within the human mind are warped during upbringing.

Couldn't there be both ?

Some genetically inherited psychopathy and some "acquired" psychopathy triggered by external factors.

 

[domi]

I guess that the core argument of the above piece is simply that psychopathy is not an inherited trait in a genetic sense. I believe that psychopathy is a condition which occurs when natural processes within the human mind are warped during upbringing.

Couldn't there be both ?

Some genetically inherited psychopathy and some "acquired" psychopathy triggered by external factors.

Exactly. That is what current research is indicating: a mix of nature and nurture.

 

[Laura]

That is what current research is indicating: a mix of nature and nurture.

Yes, and boy, how the deviants have fought it. The same ideas were bruited late in the last century, but the psychopaths took charge of psychiatry, psychology and real research became ever harder to do.

But with modern methods, it has become more and more obvious and they are working like crazy to get that horse back in the barn. That's probably what's behind people like "drjekyll" above... they are sent out to propagandize whether they are conscious of it or not.

 

[Mike]

I guess that the core argument of the above piece is simply that psychopathy is not an inherited trait in a genetic sense. I believe that psychopathy is a condition which occurs when natural processes within the human mind are warped during upbringing.

Couldn't there be both ?

Some genetically inherited psychopathy and some "acquired" psychopathy triggered by external factors.

Exactly. That is what current research is indicating: a mix of nature and nurture.

I think 'The Mask of Sanity' gives good examples in many of the case studies of where upbringing had little to do with the psychopathic behavior individuals displayed. If anything, the family members involved were having their emotional and financial well-being sucked out of them because they couldn't or didn't stop supporting the psychopathic behavior.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

The latest research (Hare, Blair, and others) suggests that there is NO connection between the psychopath's emotional make-up and upbringing. However, there IS a connection between the psychopaths childhood experiences, socioeconomic status, etc, and the amount of antisocial behavior he or she engages in. The same with intelligence. The dumber the psychopath, the more likely (s)he will engage in anti-social behavior.

In short, rich, spoiled psychopaths do not engage in obviously antisocial behavior. They don't get caught. The ones that do are either dumb or were raised in less than ideal conditions.

 

[vinny]

I think it would it be fair to say that there IS a connection between upbringing and behaviour that appears outwardly psychopathic, basically due to psychological damage done (many times unwittingly) during key periods of emotional development as a child. The problem is a lack of precise terms, or maybe a contradicting set of terms, or a deliberate obfuscation of the issues by those psychpaths in academia that wish to muddy the waters. so it is VERY important to work towards having a set of clear unambiguous terms from which to work. The 'popular' definition of psychopath (ie. Hanibal Lectur) is really not useful in that regard.

as Joe said:

We are all capable of psychopathic behavior. Worse still, we are all susceptible to be "psychopathised" as Lobaczewskis describes in such clear detail.

But the important point is this: while anyone can act in a way that is somewhat psychopathic, there are individuals on this planet (some say 6% of the population) who are unable to act in a way that is truly human.

so there are behavioural effects - from one person to another, often from parent to child.
and seperately there are genetic effects - which no amount of good or bad parenting will resolve.

so I think it is important to remember that there are TWO different issues, that need to be always remembered so that they cannot each be used to confuse the other. Hervey Cleckley clearly describes early on in his book 'Mask of Sanity' how the issues are very cleverly and effectively confused by cross-association of the different concepts, so that it becomes difficult to analyse either. this seems to be a deliberate (or at least inevitable mechanical ponerising) manouvre on the part of the pathocracy.

 

[Niall]

I believe that psychopathy is a condition which occurs when natural processes within the human mind are warped during upbringing.

This may have exclusively been the cause for psychopathy in the past, however Lobaczewski and others show that nowadays psychopathy is also an inherited disorder; essential/genetic psychopathy

Nonetheless, I do not believe that there is a key difference between the psychological dynamics that underlie conventional selfishness and the psychological dynamics that dominate the mind of what we would, medically, class as a psychopathic person.

My issue with the medical classification of psychopathy is simply that it separates them into a group of people who can be seen as distinct from the normally self-centered. I understand why this distinction exists, but I believe that psychopaths are one extreme of a continuum of moral consciousness of which we are all a part. I believe that there is a part of this mindset in each of us. In psychopaths it is grossly exaggerated..

It appears to me that your interpretation of the matter has its basis in a fundamental preconception that we are all one; of the same 'moral consciousness' as you described it. This position is a wholly understandable one given the persistent reinforcement such a conception receives from our kin, our education system, and our culture; all stemming from our innate empathy with the world around us. Ultimately, in an absolute sense, yes, all is one. However, as I understand things, at this level, in our world, this is not the case. Statistical data compiled by some of the foremost experts in this matter clearly marks out the existence of a threshold of sorts beyond which there are people who are born psychopaths. They did not 'construct an internal world of thought which is critically destructive in many different ways'. They inherited said internal world; it is hardwired into their psycho-biological substratum. We are talking about an entirely other moral compass; the inverted opposite of the one normal human beings assume all around them to possess, at least to some extent.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not striving to impress an 'us and them' scenario upon you. Just saying that from my observations and learning through the work of others, that this seems objectively to be the case. Furthermore, 'they' certainly see the world through this 'us versus them' lens.

It's rare to find one who'll really chat in depth about it.

The point as I see it is that psychopaths do not have depth. Any performance you witnessed indicating such would therefore have been entirely superficial.

Essentially, I believe that such an explanation is pretty simplistic. I think that we can indeed understand the kind of dynamics that go into the formation of a psychopathic mind.

I do believe that an understanding of the formative dynamics of the psychopathic personality might be of great use to those of us who wish to end the destructive influence that selfishness has on the world.

Instead of some grand spiritual enemy, we could instead look at it as something with function and form - not to belittle it, but to demythologise it so that when we fight it we do not feel overwhelmed by it's scale.

Fo' sho!

Wait till you get your head around ponerology ;) It is prodigious in its scope for assessing the complexities of the issue of psychopathy, and 'fits like a glove' in terms of understanding psychopathy within the natural worldview, or normal 'moral consciousness', as you put it.

If you haven't already, do explore this introductory overview:

THE PSYCHOPATH - The Mask of Sanity: Special Research Project of the Quantum Future Group
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm

 

[drjekyll]

That is what current research is indicating: a mix of nature and nurture.

Yes, and boy, how the deviants have fought it. The same ideas were bruited late in the last century, but the psychopaths took charge of psychiatry, psychology and real research became ever harder to do.

But with modern methods, it has become more and more obvious and they are working like crazy to get that horse back in the barn. That's probably what's behind people like "drjekyll" above... they are sent out to propagandize whether they are conscious of it or not.

My unconscious proclivities aside for a second, I do have a few reservations about the characterisation of psychopaths in this way.

I think that to posit some kind of hidden psychopathic alliance of genetic mentalists raises several unresolved issues, issues which may be of critical importance in the advancement of a project such as this, which concerns itself with truth.

One of these related to the core facts about the condition of psychopathy itself. First off, psychopaths do not care about each other. They trust each other less than we trust them. One of the classic hallmarks of the psychopath is that they have extreme difficulty maintaining long-term relationships as lovers, as friends or as allies.

To talk about some unity of purpose behind psychopaths, even (in fact, especially) genetic psychopaths, overlooks the utter paucity of vision and total lack of ability to bond that is a hallmark of the psychopathic mind. Simply put, psychopaths don't like each other very much. They do not work in concert. They are, essentially, leeches.

Having no vision of what is right, of what should be done, I find it hard to understand how a true psychopath can act in concert with other psychopaths for any sustained period. Sure, while things are going well, one psychopath may assist another for mutual gain. As soon as the opportunity arises to stab anyone in the back for their own benefit, however, a psychopath will take it. It's just who they are.

My second concern is perhaps even more fundamental than this first one.

My biggest issue with the demonisation of psychopathy is this: evil is not restricted to the mentally ill. Moreover, to focus on these individuals as if they were the root cause of the world's ills seems to be treading very close to a caricature of the problems that we face. Perhaps I am wrong. I'm more than happy to hear from anyone who disagrees, and I'll really question every I say. Scout's honour. At the same time, to present a 'genetic psychopath' as the cause and culprit of all the world's current problems on a macro and micro scale seems to hold the danger of leaning toward an 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' mentality in which these invisible culprits are seen everywhere we look.

Basically, I think that blaming psychopathy massively diverts attention from common-or-garden apathy, selfishness and cruelty. These issues I believe, are utterly endemic in our society, and come about because, I would argue, of the fragmentation and vacuousness of modern culture. And while fighting psychopaths may give us back that sense of doing something good and decent in the world, the fact is that even if all the psychopaths were removed totally, I am not convinced that there would be a great deal of difference in what we see on the news every day. Apathy, indolence, despair, lack of purpose, emptiness - these are the demons of the modern age.

This leads me to my final point. I will be brutally honest here, and I do not wish to anger any of the long-standing members of this community. Basically I'm not pointing fingers, I do feel that this is a crucial point which needs to be addressed.

Perhaps the greatest problem of the contemporary world is that there no longer are any grand moral purposes which we can truly believe in. All the great enterprises seem doomed from the outset. Environmentalists tell us that our planet is inches from ruin and moving rapidly over that last pitiful stretch of ground. We pitch ourselves at these moral struggles as the generation of 1914 pitched themselves into the Great War.

But do we invent these thing? Do we invent demons to attack, that we may rail against them and in doing so, bring to our lives a sense of the epic, a sense of the grand? It is as if we seek war because we hunger for the simplicity of meaning afforded the soldier - that we might struggle and fight at great risk against great odds, but our payoff is the assurance that there is significance in what we do.

And the crazy thing is that this doesn't just happen at the higher level either. We transfer it to the mundane, which is why we humans live such drama-filled lives. We create the drama. We need it. Otherwise what is left?

A gnawing feeling of pointlessness that threatens to consume us.

The real indictment of our culture in Alan Curtis's excellent documentary "The Power Of Nightmares" was, for me, the very last thing he said - that the real horror is that once the nightmares are eventually proven false, the politicians who now draw power and legitimacy from the stories of terror that they now purvey will have to face the fact that they have nothing else to say. That government has no higher purpose, because there is no higher purpose upon which we can all agree.

If our insight into ourselves cannot square this circle, our culture will descend into apathy and meaninglessness, a condition which can only be fought piecemeal by invented mythologies of meaning.

It is this danger, the socially corrosive effect of this decline of meaning and identity in the modern age, which neoconservatism seeks directly to combat through the invention of new mythologies. Based on the ideas of Leo Strauss, they seek to make society more cohesive with the invention of us vs them fantasies, fantasies of a world of moral absolutes, in which a culture or individual can forge an identity.

But does this shoe fit us also? Is this a case of the invention of meaning through demonisation and mythologisation? Is that what is happening here? I am honestly asking this, and I do not mean any offence. Honest to God. Straight up.

So is there any hope? The fact is, as far as I can see, that you cannot change the fundamental nature of man. But that nature is infinite and changable. Once upon a time I believed that because there is an infinite capacity for darkness inside us which terrifies us all, in the desire to restrain it we seem to have set chains on the pursuit of human excellence.

But the truth is that it isn't even that simple. Where is morality in this age? Vilified? Caricatured?

Is self-delusion integral to believing in your own morality, as Coppola suggests in Apocalypse Now?

I'm not saying that it is. I believe that morality is shining and good, that it is real.

There are some people who move through life well. And things like kindness, compassion, decency, honour - all these things are more than just words. They correspond to fundamental facets of the human condition which are as much a part of us as our hands and feet. In what sense is this not a story. Nobility does exist. Courage is real. But in the world in which we all live, the banality of life has a corrosive, suffocating effect upon these principles in practise, because the shifting sands of life render easy moral distinctions elusive and indistinct, like cigarette smoke on a windless day.

All we are left with therefore are a host of feelings of wanting to do something good for the world and having no obvious way to do that. We seek to express that side of us which is most sidelined by society, and by our own indulgence in the orgy of sidelines our western society sets in front of us. That side of us is, simply, the heroic.

Many of us, I believe, have dreams of moral greatness - not to be lauded as great, but to achieve greatly with our lives, things of lasting value, things of pith and moment. But that hunger for moral greatness - can it not lead us into seeing demons when in truth there are none, to give us something simple to rail against? Is this not, in fact, the greatest threat to our culture?

To fight invented causes for the sake of generating meaning? That is the beating heart of the War on Terror, and it is also the beating heart of a million facets of our modern age. It is the engine of our fragmentation.

These are my concerns. They may not be convenient, but they are honestly held, and I place them here for scrutiny. I think these issues need to be resolved in some way, addressed somehow. Because if they are not, I don't think that the elimination of psychopathy, even if that were possible, would not halt the terminal decline of something to do with life that actually really means something.