Komatos

Sorry but there is a problem with your belief in the word "Empathy", empathy is considered to just be an "Understanding of" and not a "Caring for". What you are refering to is Compassion. Too often the terms are confused and used incorrectly. In reality, Sociopaths and Psychopaths have empathy for all around them, without it, they would not be such successful liars and manipulaters. What they lack is compassion, guilt, emotion, and morality.

Anyone who fails to understand the logic of this is focusing too much on the emotional side of such a politic and not enough on the rational and logical side. Emotional compassionate influence over ones political opinions and decisions interferes with what "should" be done. The human race needs to overcome primitive instinct (emotions) to ever advance beyond these primitive times. Science fiction interpretations of futuristic alien societies usually involve civilizations in which emotion is not an element. The society moves forward accepting losses rather than weeping over them. Accepting defeats rather than triumphantly dumping resources into meaningless causes. Emotion and compassion hold the human race back. Compassion and emotion are acceptable so long as they are not costly enough to make the misfortunes of one become the misfortunes of many so long as the misfortunes of one are "less". Eugenics are a revolutionary idea and it is the evolution of all mankind to one day embrace such a concept. Nazi Germany may have been lacking in some departments, but in terms of being the evolutionary masterpeice of the early 20th century, they were not lacking. Their scientific research was never ethical or emotional but was always beneficial in ways never before achieved. Emotion in nazi germany was limited to Civic Virtue rather than compassionate dissent. Outside the box military strategic thinkers of nazi germany created modern military concepts of Panzer Divisions and Blitzkriegs which now define the military doctrines of armies world wide. Hitler and the nazis created a regime that would overcome emotion to create outside the box revolutionary advances. Every western liberal democracy was simply in the dust. Read some of hitlers speaches rather than simply westernized propaganda. Eugenics was a part of the Nazis longterm domestic policies that probably could have created a walking talking race of godly beings in comparison to the relatively weak genetic make up of modern mankind. Unethical, unemotional, but not unintelligent and most certainly not ignorant. The fact of the matter is, in the end, after such policies go through for enough generations and the wars are won the land is taken; The society that would result, is utopion, and more free than any democracy on the planet...

In response to most opinions on this thread: I find modern concepts of "Morality" to be subjective to opinions and arbitrary. It is rather a predjudice system in which people join a bandwagon to say such behavior is "wrong" and some is "right". The fact is nothing is right or wrong, and most of morality (and modern world "laws" which are based on morality) revolves around political ideals and opinions that the "majority" agree with. It is a form of oppression for those that simply do not share the beliefs or a conscience or "morals", in a society where majority opinion rules, the minority will always be opressed. (No, not talking about races here, talking about ALL societies, even "nazi germany"). I disagree, I think that is simply instinct. We instinctively eat because our stomachs tell us we are hungry and it creates a feeling of empty dulled pain inside our chest that encourages us to put food into our mouths. Some people over-eat as a means of making up for the time in which they "wont be eating" later on in the day or week. It is a planned out process, not a moral one. The myth that some people simply over eat because they are fat lardasses that lack the morality to control themself, well, that is a myth. Studies show that people that overeat or are overfat (the correct term, overweight isn't really correct) are usually overfat because their body has digestive dysfunctions. The concept of Gluttony is society's creaton, and it is an insult to those who are fat out of genetical construction, not lack of self control. Including gluttony in the "Christian" set of morals only goes to make people who are fat feel bad about themself and be disliked by the general population around them. The end result is, morals hurt this person more than they help him. This is just one example of a situation in which "Morality of Society" is actually insulting, judgemental, and harmful to someone who is just being themself. This is more or less, a diferent form of instinct. Morality is a diferent thing altogether. Sexual-Drive and Sexual-Pleasure compell humans to enjoy and crave sex when in the presence of a potential geneticly acceptible partner (people are usually attracted to those of a suitable healthy body than those who are sick, fat, and careless). Being a "Player" or one who hops from partner to partner is not immoral because it allows the possibility of getting multiple victims pregnant, it is Immoral because to allow for such behavior you usually have to lie, cheat, and charm your way to get females to spread their legs for you. So then we can say Morality is not the same type of instinct as sexual drive or hunger. It also is not necessarily always "good" to have morals, some morals have more in common with racisms of the world than they do in simple Right and Wrong. Morality should be limited to what harms another human being is wrong and what doesnt is acceptable. Morality should not contain political, religious, or arbitrary opinions and behaviors, because containing such makes the question of weather or not it is moral subjective to ones opinion. Although, among most populations morality always does contain such bullshit. Not conforming with Societies morality does not make you a bad person, it makes you a diferent person. Definition one translates into peoples expectations and bandwagon standards for eachother to follow. Can be arbitrary or can be simply a concept of "Not harming others = Moral, Harming them = Immoral". Arbitrary morals are worthless, baseless, meaningless, and usually politically subjective or religious. Definition two implies such standards could be derived from a "Religious Collective" rather than simply the society in which you live (if it is a mixed culture). Such as christian morals being diferent than muslim morals in American Society. Definition three implies "Morality" could be a term simply applied to conforming to standards, believing in them, and abiding by them. The problem with the belief of "Morals" being correct is it is almost a form of belief in self-superiority. It is similar to being a Snob. Someone who believes their morals are correct and someone who lacks morals (or simply has less of them, or diferent ones) lacks understanding. Why are people typically moral? Why do they tend to convince themself that what they did in situations was "right"? Simple. When a normal person with morals "breaks" a moral, they feel guilty. Lets look at a few definitions: Guilty - Suffering from or prompted by a sense of guilt: a guilty conscience. Guilt -The fact of being responsible for the commission of an offense, Guilty conduct; sin. Suffering - To feel pain or distress; sustain loss, injury, harm, or punishment. Hurt - To cause mental or emotional suffering to; distress. Someone is kept in line by their morals simply to avoid Guilt and bandwagon dislike from people in their society. Guilt is clearly not a good feeling and it seems to stick around until someone confesses to, makes up for, or undoes their "sin" against their own Morality. However, if they broke a moral in which they were not enslaved to, they would feel no such feeling. If you do not kill someone simply becuase you fear punishment, you are held back by the law, not by morality. If you do not kill someone simply because you fear guilt, you are held back by morality and even if the law and society permitted such an act you probably would be a slave to your emotions. Can Morality Be Learned later on in life if it does not exist at the present? Maybe... But not without a sense of compassion and empathy for another human being. Morality is a link in a fence of a network of wiring in which Compassion, Empathy, Emotion, and Guilt are all tied into one.