Vogue

Moral systems are in constant change.  What was accepted years ago is no longer accepted and what is accepted today may not be tomorrow.  In the present, however, the systems are nearly unquestionable.  The thought of a blind deference to that which is in vogue scares me shitless regarding my ASPD and sociopathic condition.

There is little discourse regarding morality and whether morality should be legislated.  Each side holds their beliefs close to their breast and resorts to slandering the other over disagreements.  In America, both major political parties legislate morality – simply choosing different viewpoints as to that which is considered ‘moral’.  Individuals, political or not, do the same – holding their own view points as scared and others’ as anathema.  Discourse dies, hemorrhaging from the screaming.

There are “unethical” and “immoral” actions all around us on a daily basis.  Take the issue of the Washington Redskins football team and their controversial name.  Both sides of the issue are entrenched, and there is little allowed input from those in the middle.   Many see it as a slur, many others see it as empowering, and quite a few see it as a non-issue due to the liberties the owners should have regarding their product.   However, the opinions are fanatical.   The fact that such opinions are in vogue ensures that there will not be proper debate any time soon.

I was actually just having an argument with an acquaintance – who is also transgender – today regarding the role of proposed federal protections for gender identity in the workplace.  My argument is that legislation should stay away from issues of morality wherever possible.  I believe that it makes more sense, in terms of liberty, for employers to be the arbiters of who is acceptable for employment.  Is that to my detriment?  Yes.  However, I would rather see liberty than adherence to moving targets.  My friend was unamused.

What struck me most about her angry response was that she found my position incredulous considering that I am – of course – transgender.  It is as if I should have no voice because I am involved intimately in the debate and am in opposition to the trend towards a solution “benefiting” me.

However, being ASPD and sociopathic, I will most likely never be given the opportunity to challenge the seemingly universal approach toward people like myself in the legal system.  The thought that some are irredeemable is currently in vogue.  Overzealous prosecutors and juries use the latest assessments and evidence to “prove” that it is morally superior to lock those like myself away for longer than the neurotypical.  Sympathetic NTs are drowned out by the majorities that have accepted an arbitrary take on morality that has become instilled in our lives and culture.

I don’t know – as I cannot entirely separate my own desire for self-preservation from the debate  – whether it makes sense for society to take such a hard line.  I do know that the moving target morality represents has landed, for the moment, in a place where it cannot be moved easily.  What is in vogue is unmovable in the short-term and the long-term will remain unknown to our lives that will surely turn to dust by then.

Image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.  Use of this image should not imply endorsement by the image author, HumanisticRationale at en.wikipedia

Godlike
Filth

Comments

  1. Anonymous says

    Overzealous prosecutors and juries use the latest assessments and evidence to “prove” that it is morally superior to lock those like myself away for longer than the neurotypical.

    You’ve mentioned this before, several times. The tendency to lock up psychopaths for longer periods (ostensibly) comes from psychopaths’ demonstrated inability to learn from their mistakes. Very bright psychopaths can learn how to manage their impulses, assuage their boredom, etc. But the majority of psychopaths commit the same crimes over and over (so the reasoning goes). I’m not sure if locking up psychopaths for longer is right or wrong, but I’m pretty sure that it stems from pragmatism, rather than misplaced moralism.

  2. Anathema says

    In the case you describe, I have little issue.

    It is the case of parole boards and prosecutors that use PCL-R evidence as a “proactive” measure of keeping sociopaths off the street that bothers me. Jon Ronson’s The Psychopath Test gives an example of one such sociopath who was indefinitely detained simply for being sociopathic – not because his crime (assault) warranted years in a facility.

Leave a Reply