Sadism - How far does our lack of empathy go?

Post Reply New Topic

I thought that was obvious. Sorry, perhaps I should've mentioned that in my replies to Rascal77s.



Most people are probably sadistic in that manner, though. I'm with you on this, though. I don't enjoy others' pain.

What I'm trying to understand is- WHY is it wrong to find pleasure in bad people suffering. I'm looking for something other than 'it's just wrong'. Let me give an example:

Saddam Husein's son Uday killed and tortured a lot of people. I would be very happy if I were to watch him being tortured. I would be beyond happy if I were the one administering it. Why is it ok to put a bullet in his head but it's not ok to make him suffer? It makes no sense.

Enjoying the suffering of others isn't justice, rather it's feeling joy at the pain of another person who feels who is as vulnerable as his or her victims. They had no say in what they did (they were born that way), and no matter how evil people can be, what gives us the right to inflict the same pain that they caused on others? We'd be feeling the same things they do, and that is reprehensible.

Killing said person quickly and painlessly equates to them never doing what they did again (or putting them in jail for life), and that is justice.

Who gets to decide what's just? Okay, besides the legal definition of justice, I'm assuming you're using the term "just" as what's "fair". Is it justice when a man tortures and rapes a child, but only gets sentenced to jail time where he'll get food, clothing, a bed, and (in some prisons) luxuries? If someone set a loved one on fire while making you watch them burn to death, would you really just want him to have a quick and painless execution in the end? If you do, then you're probably an incredibly forgiving person and the world could probably use more people like you. Or maybe I'm just a malicious sociopath whose morals have been corrupted so badly that they seem right to him.

Of course you make a good point in that, if they're put in jail for life or executed, they'll never be able to do the bad action again, but that's not enough for me.

Also, I understand that having a lack of empathy isn't something everyone with autism has and that it has more to do with difficulty "reading" a person than anything. I was more or less trying to reference my own lack of empathy. I also have a lack of sympathy, which doesn't seem to be a common trait in people with autism, so it could have muddied things up a bit.

It may seem that in doing so a person becomes what they hate, unless there is another reason for wishing to torture Uday(?).

I can see your point, and I do understand where you're coming from there, with the fairness of the criminal who spends life in jail compared to the young life taken away. But, if society wishes to inflict the same or equal punishment on said individual as he inflicted on the innocent, then they can go ahead and do such. The abyss will be looking right at them the whole time, and it's hard to go back after it's done.

If someone did something to someone I loved, I'd want them to never to be able to do that again to anyone. Whether jail or execution.

It means that you would enjoy torturing and killing a person. Uday tortured and killed people. That means that you and Uday think the same way. You and him are morally on the same level. You both enjoy killing and torturing people. If you are not wrong for wanting to do it, then he was not wrong for doing it. If what he did was wrong then you wanting to do the same thing is equally wrong. Or you are just hypocritical.

It's not the same thing. There is a difference between an innocent person and a murderer. There is also a difference in motive. According to your logic executing the murderer of a child is the same as murdering the child.

Let me give you, and anyone else that wants to answer, another scenario-

Your child has been kidnapped by a person who supplies the sex trade. You only have 2 options to get her back:

Option 1- You hire a mercenary who has a reputation for extreme brutality and you have no doubt in your mind that he will torture and slowly kill the kidnapper. The mercenary has a 100% chance to get your daughter back to you safe.

Option 2- You go with the FBI hostage rescue team who will capture the kidnapper alive and bring him in to stand trial. The FBI team has a 50% chance of getting your daughter back alive.

Which option would you choose?

I'm against the death sentence, against revenge killing, and against much of the structure of the current penal system. I do not see any merit or virtue in torturing another human being to death, whatever their crimes. I am aware that sometimes killing happens in self-defense, however, and sometimes that is difficult to avoid.

Your logic is all off. You've been watch too many Rambo movies. No mercenary would have a 100% change at that. Especially if he needs to take the kidnapper alive, so he can then torture and slowly kill him. Too many things could go wrong. The FBI would have a better chance then that.

How about Option 3? Just pay off the kidnapper what ever amount of money is needed to release the girl.

My attitude to torture is based on my horror of it. It's the worst thing I can imagine happening to me so I would not seek to
do it or encourage othes to do it.

A hypothetical situation doesn't require logic. I can't decide if you missed the point of the question or you're overly sensitive. How about option 3? both.

Well I think that the "Rambo" method is overrated, one of the problems with torture is that people will say close to anything while being tormented to try to stop the torture. Also what about the following problem.

You start to torture someone trying to get the answer to question X, you get a false answer which they have given you to try to stop the pain. You go off and then find out that the information is false. While you are away the person dies (while knowing the truth) so then you lose the chance to get the information out of them.

I've never understood crimes where people get tortured for the PIN number to their bank card - it's only money! Who would want excrutiating pain/possible death as opposed to just telling them the number?? There's no logic to it. I'd rather lose all my money than suffer torture any day and can't understand the mentality of anyone who'd risk torture just to hang on to their money.

Option 1.

In this hypothetical world of super-efficient mercenaries, the formation of an FBI hostage rescue team seems unlikely.

I would prefer to enlist The A-Team.

Interesting question.