Unbroken

I thought that this recent comment from an old post showed a good deal of wisdom and was overall good advice.

I am the partial empath who adapted to the reality check. I gave the mental pink slip to the person I encountered even though I am not in his range of vision anymore. I certainly can't change anyone, and it is self-destructive and foolish to harbor hatred when there are so many other great stuff of life to enjoy. The unapologetic sociopath is forgivable (release that person and move on with your life) because lack of remorse has qualified him/herself to be dispensable. To all you empaths out there, there is no ethical need to pause for the sociopath who never intended to pause life for you. You can't help someone who doesn't want to change. 

It reminds me of the book Unbroken, which I am just finishing. It's kind of a funny read for me because the childhood chapters read a lot like the childhood chapters of my book -- listing a bunch of shenanigans that make it clear that the child is taking childhood pranks one step further than most. (It actually makes me wonder a bit at the people who insist we can diagnose children based primarily at their antisocial behavior.) I won't spoil the book for anyone who hasn't read or seen the movie (or knows of the underlying facts), I'll just quote:

The paradox of vengefulness is that it makes men dependent upon those who have harmed them, believing that their release from pain will come only when they make their tormentors suffer. 

I actually think Unbroken is a great book for people who would like to adopt this ability to let go of the (often one-sided) emotional connection that they still have with their abusers, long after the actual abuse is over. Of course, I can't advocate dismissing a whole category of human beings as "negligible" in the grand scheme of things, e.g. as being a lower form of humanity than you are so you wash your hands of their suffering/fate. But I definitely think you can dismiss particular traits of a particular person as being, how the commenter put it, "dispensable", or "able to be done without". That, in fact, it's almost impossible (paradoxically) for many people to see their abuser as a human being without first condemning and then dismissing a few of their worst traits as being morally repugnant to them. Once those traits of the abuser are condemned/rejected/dismissed with finally in one's mind, all that one is left with is a flawed human being that may be more flawed than most, but actually shares in common with every other human being the fact that it is flawed at all. 

Context is everything

A little related to the last post, Mormon small children around the world were given this interesting pseudo ethical (but mostly practical) dilemma recently:

Ask the children to imagine that they are alone on a raft in the middle of the ocean. They discover that they must lighten their load because the raft is riding low in the water. They must throw overboard all but two items of their supplies. From the following list, ask them to choose the two items they will keep:

Life jacket

First aid kit

Chest filled with gold

Fishing pole, fishing tackle, and bait

Case of one dozen bottles of fresh water

Two-way radio

Box of emergency flares

Large can of shark repellent

At this point you may be wondering what the moral punchline is going to be. For me, I thought for sure it was going to be about getting rid of the chest filled with gold (by the way, the relative weights of a chest of gold and life jacket do not seem equivalent)? Or maybe something more of a stretch, like the importance of having a two way radio to God or something?

For some reason the answer was unexpected to me.

List the choices on the chalkboard, and ask the children to explain the reasons for their choices. The choices in this activity should pose a dilemma. Point out that choosing would be difficult because they would not know what would happen in the future: they might sink and need the life jacket, become thirsty and need the water to drink, become hungry and need the fishing pole, encounter sharks and need the repellent, need the radio to seek help, get hurt and need the first-aid kit, need the flares for a nighttime rescue, or get rescued in the next few hours and wish they had kept the treasure.

I thought it was an interesting illustration about how the value of things depends on context, and how I was sort of ignorant to assume that there would just be a set hierarchy of usefulness to nonusefulness based on the limited information given. Maybe you were like me and your brain raced to figure out what the "right" answer would be too, given what you think you know about survival. Like many of you likely prioritized water over food (fishing pole), because you can survive longer without food than water. But I've read Unbroken, so I know that there's actually a decent chance of getting fresh water from the rain, which would naturally collect in the bottom of a typical raft. And if the two way radio was in range of help, it makes most sense to keep that. Who cares if you get a little thirsty or hungry in the few hours that it might take to be rescued. Also, who cares if you're hungry or thirsty if sharks come right away, so in some ways shark repellant is most necessary. But if the whole idea is either to facilitate speedy rescue or to survive until rescue comes or you've drifted to safety, it's really not clear what would be more valuable without more context. But still my mind had an impulse to think that there was a "right" answer, or at least "righter". I was surprised that the punchline was -- it depends.

But I think I also can understand a little better now the perspective of people who think that there's really no use for sociopaths in the world, such that we can and should just eradicate them all. Those people must feel the same way about sociopaths as the way I almost instinctively felt about the chest of gold in the raft. Because the gold seems to me to be so obviously useless to that situation, I would have probably thrown out the gold without a second thought. But the lesson makes a good point -- what if you were rescued in a few hours. You'd wish you hadn't.

I think it's similar with sociopaths. Some people might see the world in a particular way that would make sociopaths seem an obvious detriment with no countervailing benefit and almost just automatically think it would be best to get rid of them. But sociopaths can be extremely useful in certain contexts, e.g. life or death situations where something dangerous or morally questionable needs to get done quickly and effectively -- war, espionage, natural or man made disaster, but even smaller things like car accidents, impending street violence, taking risks in business, having the mental fortitude to try something and not be afraid of failure. Sociopaths are like the gold, or maybe more like the flares, in the sense that they don't seem as immediately useful as we've been conditioned to see the other items, but sociopaths would truly be your tool of choice in certain situations.

And unlike this survival hypothetical, there's no reason to want to go around killing sociopaths (or even preventing them from being born through genetic screening or whatever). Because unlike the survival hypo, we can keep everyone in the boat. And you know the old saying, better to have something and not want it than to want something and not have it.