A universal (non-species-ist) definition of Sociopath would include 99% of all humans

Sociopaths focus on the advantages to be enjoyed for themselves, without any concern for the costs others might suffer as a result. 

In our typical anthropocentric, species-ist way, putting humans at the center of the universe, and as the sole referent in cost-benefit analyses, we gloss over the interests of not-humans (other sentient animals), and not-yet-humans (re: abortion), in our definition of sociopathology.

What the term sociopath really refers to is behaviour which jeapardises the smooth, peaceful, productive functioning of society, in terms of human to human social interaction. As such it is species-ist. It is purely instrumental and utilitarian, based purely on our perceived self-interest.  

The state recognises human nature for what it is, and employs the threat and use of violence as a deterrent, to prevent the average human border-line socio-pathology from becoming expressed in active socio-pathology. Thus society is built upon this state monopoly on violence.

 The State employs this violence to ensure our begrudging non-agression towards others. It compels us to respect the rights of others we feel no natural empathy towards. We tend to naturally only love ourselves and ours, our family, our friends, our pets, and less and less, our tribe, our state, our nation, our ethnic group, our species, and mammals, and so on. The less like us things us, the less their natural share in our empathy, and the less likely it is that we will consider their interests in our cost-benefit analyses.

Where the state failed to represent the perceived interests of some of its members, these members have exited from the informal ´social compact´ which granted the state a monopoly on violence, and took this right for itself, engaging in acts of terror against the state, and the society it represented.

The State of Israel was founded on genocidal acts of terror, no different in quality from those of the Nazis. The more modern State of Israel was again founded upon terrorism. In fact the modern age of terror was ushered into existence with the King David Hotel bombings, which murdered dozens of completely random people, simply to draw attention to the demands of its perpetrators, including the later Nobel Peace Prize winning head of the Israeli State. Of course the head of the Palestinian Liberation Authority, another terrorist organisation, also won this ´peace´ prize.

Remember that slavery was not abolished as an act of popular will. It took armies and massive violence and destruction to bend most of the populaton to begrudgingly respect the rights of slaves to enjoy the most basic of human rights. 

So far we have limited the discussion mostly to humans. A more enlightened human, or alien, would consider the interests of all sentient beings in its cost-benefit analyses. As such it would define all non-vegan humans as sociopaths.

Keeping in mind that an organisation will be defined as much by the means it adopts, as by the ends these means are employed towards. Most people consider the violent means adopted in the U.S Civil war to be legitimate. More and more have come to begrudgingly recognise the legitimacy of many past acts of terror, as unfortunately necessary means towards noble ends.

An unbiased observer would have included the U.S ´war of independance´ as a set of acts of terror. Whether they really were fighting against tyranny is debateable. However most ´wars of independance´ employ terror to gain freedom for some group of people from the exploitation of another group of people. Certainly the battle of ´The Alamo´ was fought to continue slavery, to escape the ´tyranny´ of a more enlightened state, Mexico, in enforcing the abolition of slavery in Texas.  Thus the ends here would not justify the means, in hindsight.

So what of the animal liberation movments?  What of the rights of animals to freedom from our exploitation of their inherited inequality? 

What means would justify the ends of the abolition of this exploitation, this holocaust, this industrial scale cruelty and abuse? I am talking about future generations looking back to our time. We cannot be trusted to be the judges of our own behaviour any more than the slave owners of their times could be trusted to determine the ethics of their behaviour, in their times.

If we abandon our arrogance, our species-ism, our anthropocentrism, we can see that, and assign each individual sentient being the same rights, we have to accept the scale of our injustice.  The injustice we continue to perpetrate against not-human sentient beings is incomparably larger than that which we have perpetrated on any members of the human species over our entire history.

Thus, the suffering is greater than that associated with any earlier social action.  The cost being higher than any earlier social action, we must necessarily see that the means that might eliminate this suffering, this massive, never before calculated cost, would also be justifyably, incomparably massive in comparison to any past means that had been employed.

Remember these means were all acts of  terror. The means employed was brute force. The consequences were massive scale carnage and destruction. And yet we consider these acts, these costs, these means, to be justified by the ends they attained. These ends included the abolition of slavery, and increasing rights for all members of society to freedom from exploitation and abuse by their fellow humans.

Our empathy for the suffering on not-humans is a weaker determinant than our desire to consume their bodies, and to abuse our power over them by using them as objects for the testing of products we enjoy consuming. In other words we treat not-humans we have no particular empathy for, which generally  includes all but ´pets´,  as means to our ends. We do not consider their interests in our cost-benefit analyses. We numb ourselves to their suffering when we are aware of it, and do our best to remain ´ignorant´of it, so that we may deny it to ourselves.

Ideally we would be able to confront each person with the suffering that their consumption of a particular product produced for other not-humans, at the  ´point of sale´. We would have technologies I call ´tele-empathy´, which would force people to face up to the suffering they are responsible for each time they consume a product.

I doubt that the mass media would even publish any media which showed this suffering. Even if animal rights activists were to suddenly gain access to billions of dollars in resources and creative talent, the mass media would simply refuse to air their advertisements, their public announcements, their documentaries, and so on.

People want to pretend that their enjoyment does not come at the cost of cruelty and suffering to the least powerful members of our society. Their selfish desire is a greater determinant than their empathy. They will not be confronted with the reality of their actions by the media. The empathy they might have felt will never be activated. The determinant power of it to modify human behaviour will not be realised.

And so, what means remain available to those seeking to liberate not-humans from the bureacratic, industrial scale violence and effectively torture, of the mass of the human population?

I have suggested some creative, non-violent means in my novel ´The veil of ignorance´.  My ´Animal Liberation Army´ creatively use the appearance of a threat of violence as a means.

However facts are facts. No group has ever managed to have others respect its rights, to deter others from agression and exploitation, without some form of Army, or at least the possibility of forming such an army, as in the case of Ghandi. And what followed Ghandi´s success was the formation of more armies, and the employment of more violence as a means to the ends of gaining ´liberty ´for some group from some other.

In fact Budhhism and Jainism was brought to most of the world by the armies of  Mahavira (The Jain Conqeror), and Asoka (The Buddhist Conqueror).

Sadly few people who claim to be Buddhist today actually act in line with Buddha´s teachings, which promote  a vegan lifestyle and philosophy.  It is only the few million Jain adherents, and a few million Western vegans, who continue in the tradition of Mahavira and Buddha. Of course even Judeao-Christian bibles recommend the vegan lifestyle as superior. The Eden presented in Genesis, and the ´Next world´ portrayed elsewhere, are all definitively vegan.  And so the power of religion to improve the world has proven severely limited. It is unlikely that religion will become the force for change that a superior ethic demands.

And so, we are left to consider what means justify our ends, keeping in mind that the ends we chose will define us as much as the ends we employ them towards.  We are clear that the more powerful only tend to respect the rights of the less powerful if they are forced to, by the threat of violence. In  other words, the existence of, or potential for, the raising of an Army, by which it can defend itself from the transgressions of the more powerful.  Sadly, history shows that for most people, the only right they recognise is that of might.

History shows that humans only begrudgingly act as if they respect the rights of other humans, if those humans have the power to defend their own rights, personally, or through access to armies, police, prisons, and the use of violence.  Ideally individuals and groups are defended by a State.  Thus others will begrudgingly act as if they respect my rights if the State threatens violence of some kind upon them for failing to do so.

I have experienced many acts of violence at the hands of those representing the State.  I am certain that, if I forced people to investigate my greivances by committing acts of violence, or threatening to employ them in some believable way, the world would find my grievances valid. 

The state would award me some compensation. History would define my acts of violence as justified means to the ends of justice. These means would have encouraged the world to finally define acts of workplace victimisation and mobbing  as the acts of violence they in fact are. That is something for my victimisers to consider. I in fact have nothing to lose, as they have made my life not worth living, having denied me access to the basic rights to work and a deserved reputation. Those without work tend to find themselves without most rights, including the right to acceptance, approval, and love.

Individuals tend to define all their own acts as just, and only the acts of others as unjust.  In other words people generally only define themselves and their loved ones as victims. they define all their own acts as justified and legitimate. They find excuses and explanations for all their own acts of injustice.

 And thus many acts of violence continue, in the form of mobbing and workplace victimisation. Many of these are perpetrated by representatives of the State itself. 

And so we cannot rely on our State protecting the rights of the less powerful, those without a ´mob´to support them,  let alone the least powerful, the not-humans. We cannot even rely on amassing the financial resources to fund a mass-media campaign aimed at targetting the empathy of the average person, or at least the most powerful members of our societies. These campaigns would not be aired. 

We might become as creative as possible, writing songs, plays, poems, books, and movie scripts, and in producing such creative works, all of which seek to elicit an empathy for the suffering, distress, and pain of not-humans, and then engage it to produce new laws and regulations protecting the rights of not-humans.

We might work to make the vegan lifestyle as attractive as possible, by increasing the range, availability, and affordability of a vegan lifestyle in general.  We could set up not-for-profit co-ops to practically facilitate this. A vegan supermarket in every suburb, in every state, in every country in the world!  We must become entrepreneurial, but motivated by the interests of not-humans, rather than our own, narrow, interests.

And in some form, yes, finally, we cannot avoid the need for some sort of Animal Liberation Army. For in the end, it is force that people respect, rather than arguments. They might post-rationalise their motives after the fact, and imagine themselves to have been motivated by empathy, by reason, and by those beautiful principles of justice and fairness, however it is the threat of violence that accompanies non-compliance, that motivates most people to comply with more enlightened laws and regulations, with fairer, more just, expectations and norms of behavior.

So let us lobby the state as hard as we can to take up arms for our struggle. And let leave any ´moral´ judgement of any animal rights activists who take up arms in their legitimate struggle, as legitimate means to legitimate ends, to history.

For it is only history that is able to make such judgements. It is only history that eliminates the partisan, self-interested, short-sighted motives of contemporaries to the greatest fights for right, for justice, for freedom from oppression, exploitation, and slavery, from the judgement process.

Yes, it was not arguments that freed anyone from exploitation, oppression, and slavery. It was armies.

Of course your response will be self-righteous. Like all slave owners, all the Moses´and Hitlers of past, you will be outraged by anyone claiming the right to fight for justice and fairness.  You have a god-given, historical destiny to cruelly oppress, exploit, kill, rape, and torture, all animals, and any people not belonging to your master race.

But history has since shown what happens when you deny TROONATNOOR.  Ultimately we must all submit to reality. And reality can bite. So do not complain when it bites you. You are now in a position to appease the dogs of war, by offering justice for all sentient beings.

Do not complain when you become the victim of your own lies, denial, and cruelty.

But, we beseech you. Do the right thing now, because it is the right thing, and thus avoid the need for might to impose it upon you by force of arms, by acts of terror, by the employment of violent means.

The world as it is is not ´morally´worthy of being reproduced. Little would be lost to a ´moral´ universe, were it to be destroyed. Humans have too much power vis a vis other animals.  They have employed their inherited holistic inequality vis a vis not-humans to the vilest ends.

Rather than seeking to optimalise the experience of life for all sentient beings, humans have exploited their power vis a vis non-humans simply to cruelly, systematically, industrially, and heartlessly, exploit them as means to their own ends. 

One can only wonder at the delusion of those who imagine that this is consistent with any notion of being the image of some just and loving god.

Think, you god-ists. Eden was Vegan. The life to come is Vegan. Between was suffering, ending only in armageddon.

So why not embrace veganism today, and thus avoid the armageddon that a non-vegan society morally ´deserves´(given your own assumption of free will!). Embrace the vegan teachings of the prophets today.

I do not desire any violence at all. I seek a completely violence free world. It is possible. However ´peace´ which shields the massive industrial scale violence committed upon the least powerful sentient beings in our world is no desireable end in itself. It is an ugly peace. An unworthy peace. It is merely the calm before the next war. It is the peace of despots, of tyrants, of dictatorial regimes maintained by continual terror, threats, and acts of violence.

History has shown that, very rarely, societies can move from this stage onto more just stages, without full-scale war. However it has only rarely occured without the real and present potential for violent defense of what is right and good and just.

Only peace with justice for all sentient beings is worthy of being defended and reproduced. 

We are at war. Only it is a secret war. The prisoners and victims are kept away from the public eye. They are kept in ´concentration camps´ on the edges of towns. The public pretend they do not exist. If asked, afterwards, they will claim they were unaware they existed, and what happened there. At the time they are happy to benefit from the cheaper goods and services provided by the slave labour, but now they will feign complete ignorance. And those who are active will claim they were ´merely following orders´, and complying with public opinion, and the norms of their society.

In hindsight, partisan (human) historians will define the time as that of  a ´criminal´ hegemony of the mass media, lobby groups, and religion. They will absolve the masses from any response-ability. They were the victims of others who manipulated them!

However we, today, know that is not true. We have the response-ability. We do not need to abuse our power over animals. A vegan lifestyle can be at least as satisfying as a cruel non-vegan one. We can become deserving of justice ourselves, by being just ourselves.

And this is the final point of anyone who wants to avoid becoming the next victim of injustice. You cannot sanely claim to deserve justice when you act unjustly. You cannot put injustice out into the world and then expect to avoid becoming its vicitim at some point.

Opportunism, and right is might,  define the valuies, behaviour and principles of 99% of humans vis a vis not-humans. We could hardly complain when some not-human, one with a superior holistic inheritance which gives it the power over us, decides to cruelly exploit us as means to its own ends.  

And this not-human is on the radar already. Even if you do not believe in aliens, you will soon come into direct contact with the new, superior, more powerful species that is emerging. The Cyborg.

Within a few decades this superior organism will far surpass us mere humans in power. It will have the might to decide what is right. If we cannot agree on principles that are universal, then how would we be able to program computers to operate according to such principles?

And why should a superior being respect us, when we are unworthy of that respect. When we are cruel, heartless, opportunists, who reproduce and exploit inequality as a means to our own selfish ends. Ends which we could in fact serve without any cruelty.

And this is the final point. We are opportunists. We employ things as means to our ends. However we have vegan means which we can employ in serving our ends, in satisfying our desires, our needs, in gratifying our instincts.

If we do not take this opportunity, it indicates that human nature must be, at its core, cruel. And that is not a nature I wish to inflict upon the universe. That is a nature the universe could well do without. That is a nature that should not be reproduced. That is a nature that should be annihilated before it can contaminate the rest of the universe.

And so, unless we can accept our flaws and optimalise TROONATNOOR, I can only go along with all those religions that yearn for an Armageddon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s