Autism and Morality

Post Reply New Topic

The thing about autistic people lacking empathy is a load of bull. They probably say that because a lot of us tell the truth without sugar-coating it. To many people, that's a strength; some people don't want to be lied to, even if it will hurt them.

But I really admire your character. You sound like a really kind person. I'm sure your teachers found you to be a breath of fresh air.

This one's a bit tricky for me.

My brother and I fought like cats and dogs (are supposed to). He'd lie, cheat and steal and lay the blame on me. My parents always believed him too, which upset me even more.

So as I've grown older, I've never hesitated to jump into a fight. Either for myself, or to defend someone else. I will not be bullied without that bully getting some bruises himself. And I don't care in the slightest if I end up in hospital. He'll get equal or more of what he dishes out. I can take a hit, and I can get back up after getting knocked down. With more furry than many have seen, or want to see again.

I'll obay any law that makes sense. And I'll ignore any law that I disagree with. I am safe and careful. I don't need a law to tell me how to treat people, so in that respect I ignore those laws because I have my own. I believe in God, and I believe in consequences. I'll take care of myself, and anyone else who I choose to care for.

I guess what I'm saying is, I'll choose which laws I'll obay. While believing my own morality is a good and righteous one. Unlike my brother, I would never willingly lie, cheat or steal from someone. For any reason.

It's strange because some say that being immoral and lacking empathy
is an Aspie trait.
I've always been very moral and rational.
Only few times have I been irrational and unfair but even then I realised the mistake
immediately after or even during and thinking 'oh no that was unfair'.
This was even before being bullied.

Could being told off by a teacher have affected morality?
Perhaps being told off temporarily scares you and forces a rewiring
to encourage you to be more moral.
But then, maybe it's because some Aspies are bullied and they know
how it's like to be bullied and don't wish it upon others except
those that seriously deserve it. (Really bad bullies deserve to be badly bullied in my personal opinion.
I may have a strong sense of morality and rationality but injustice and evil annoy me.)

But then, there's people who bully after being bullied?
Is there no end to the numerous list of factors?

I think that morality means different things to different people. Morality is ethics to me. I will not violate my core tenet of the sanctity of life no matter what. I do this because I believe life is the most valuable thing in the universe. I need to become a vegetarian for this reason in fact.

I am however more than able to make decisions without emotions entering into the equation. Were I a king I would be able to make the "tough calls" without hesitation. I would also be compelled to create a stable prosperous and just kingdom partly due to my love of order and stability and partly because the thought of people starving and suffering desperation due to my own selfishness is unacceptable.

The research studies I've seen mostly only show differences in taking intent of the perpetrator into account, which is probably linked to theory of mind.

Personally, I have a very strong moral code that involves feeling empathy for everyone - even perpetrators.

I don't tend to feel too much empathy for perpetrators. It's on a case-by-case basis.

I believe people who are philosophically inclined COULD be more "moral/ethical" than those who are not. It would be a pity, though, If they are not

There are some people who are not "educated" in moral/ethical systems who are, nevertheless, moral/ethical in the extreme.

There are religious people who are abysmal morallyethically; there are atheist who are almost exemplary morally/ethically.

This goes for NT; this goes for people with ASD's. There are representatives on both sides of the moral/ethical continuum within both groups.

On the basis of pure reason guiding ethics i'd agree that philosophers would generally be predisposed to doing the right thing.

But, alas, Reason might not be in the cards, despite what they (the philosophers) actually believe.

Other influences are at play--possibly societal in nature. Alas, even philosophers could fall prey to whatever baits are placed their way.

I tend to judge a person by his/her actions, in conjunction with their words.

If I know the rule...I will follow the rule. For instance, my Dad taught me that if a woman's husband is not home - you do not go in their house. To this day, I won't do it. Even with my best friend (whose kids call me uncle). I don't care if he is stepping out to get some ice. If I am not there with my wife, and he leaves - I leave. Even to just stand on the sidewalk.

But if I don't know the rule...how can I follow the rule? And I have a really hard time when people want to punish me for not knowing the rule.

But even as I write this, I can see that I associate morality with social rules. And from what I have learned (as infuriating as it is) - morality is on a sliding scale.

Setting aside religious origins I do not think social rules and morality just pop out of thin air or philosophy. They develop as ways to protect and maintain the societies that use them. I believe autisics are just as likely to follow them as NTs.

As far as I can tell, people differ in their levels of empathy, quite independently of whether they are on the spectrum or not. Someone on the spectrum is as likely to have a high level of empathy as someone not on the spectrum.

I think the notion that autistics lack empathy has to do with the role of social status in typical society. I have a lot of empathy for all living creatures, including humans. Specifically I care about people's physical wellbeing and about people's feelings, but I make no special allowances for social status. The latter is probably what can lead others to dish out the label "lack of empathy".

Examples:

1. I'll readily assist people who are in pain or ill health.
2. I attempt not to put people down by saying things such as "You should have known that ...". If I notice that I made this kind of mistake, I apologise.
3. I offer constructive advice along the lines of "If you do A, then in my experience there is a good chance of B happening. I suggest you consider doing C instead of A".

The third example may clash with people's perception of social status. Someone in a position of "authority" may not like such advice coming from an outsider. Typical social convention seems to be not to offer explicit advice as in this example. The potential undermining of authority or social status is interpreted as a lack of empathy.

Instead, the typical expectation is that any advice is couched in sufficiently indirect language, to leave the illusion of authority or social status intact. In the example above, a more typical approach may involve a conversation initiated by "Could you perhaps explain the suggested course of action A? I'm not quite sure I understand it." and then to perhaps follow up with "Interesting. Yes, this indeed makes sense. I've actually been in a similar situation before and would like to run a few ideas by you. When would be a good time to discuss these?"

The convoluted indirect route leaves the illusion of authority intact, and is interpreted as "having empathy". I don't have the patience for that, and I also don't like it if people present themselves as being knowledgeable in a particular situation, even if it is glaringly obvious that they don't have any relevant level of expertise.

In contrast, I always diligently point out the limits of my expertise, and this can easily be misinterpreted as a lack of expertise or lack of social intelligence.

In a nutshell, typical society is defined significantly by rules around social status. Typical humans behave very much like other primates. Autistics behave much less like typical primates, and that is confused with a lack of empathy.

I have been having to 'exercise my own morality' lately.

I believe that an Aspie's sense of 'self-preservation' or 'survival' would override any moral code they have.....well, it has in my case.

Scenario 1:

You are homeless and living on the street...it is very dangerous and you are unprotected from the elements...you have a car, so you seek refuge in that OR you find an empty shipping container and go 'this will do me until the storm/threat passes'.

Then, the cops come along and tell you to 'move on or be arrested for loitering'...now, no matter where you move on to, you will be 'loitering' because you are bloody homeless.

So, the 'Aspie mentality' would go; 'bloody arrest me then because I ain't budging an inch and besides that, at least in jail, I will have a roof overhead and three meals a day...do it....DO IT!'

Scenario 2:

You have a house/land but due to unforseen circumstances, owe the council $1,000 back rates, so they take you to court, seeking to get ownership of the land to sell it and get their back rates...

Problem is, the land is worth $150,000 and you only owe them $1,000 (which you have previously agreed to pay off at $334/month, but now that is suddenly 'unacceptable' and they want the money within 7 days or lose everything). They are only seeking to make $149,000 'profit' and you are not stupid.

So, what would any self-respecting, moral person do? get a gun and bail themselves up in their own house, threatening to shoot anybody who tries to remove them from it (or threatens to shoot themselves and commit suicide if they try).

It is all a matter of SURVIVAL and when it comes to having everything taken off you...even any means TO survive by greedy, uncaring, selfish companies who pay corrupt judges and leaving you just to die and rot in the gutter....not caring if you are mentally ill, have autism, depression or whatever...they just want money, they want blood, they want you disgraced, humiliated and rejected by society and all the rest of it...'we'll make sure you can never work in this town again, get a loan, get accommodation etc..etc....'

No wonder people just 'snap' and go around shooting people...it's the only language this lot can understand...but it is a pity when 'innocent victims' are involved. That's not fair sport.

My sense of 'morality' IS:

"As long as I am going about minding my own business, not hurting anybody else through my actions and generally 'getting on with doing my own thing', other people have got no goddamn right to interfere just because they CAN".

When that happens, I will break every law out there just to make sure society leaves me the f*** ALONE!

If they are not going to help or assist me in any way, just piss off and I don't care if you are the cops, a magistrate, even the Prime Minister himself, because guess what guys? I can use 'diminished responsibility' AS a legal defense...so no money for you.

/rant

I think that you probably can't when you've publicly stated that intention in advance.. And while snapping and killing people is entirely understandable the people who tend to get killed dont tend to be the ones responsible for the misery. I completely, empathically, understand the mindset and "soul" of the people who snap and shoot up a load of people. I've been in that desperate place where that action makes sense. But our world has enough pain and suffering in it already. Its an overload of that that leads people to treat other people badly so adding more to it by our own action is kind of a pointless protest.

This is where internet anonymity and proxy servers have benefits.

Yeah, it's a pity that the ones who get killed are not responsible...it doesn't make sense to kill those who are not involved, because all they are doing is minding their own business and if more people just DID that, the world will become a better place.

I live my life according to the 'golden rule' - treat others as you would be treated, but I would NEVER treat other people the way they all treat me....NEVER!

I don't know how much of it is 'revenge' and how much of it is 'protecting my life and property til death'.

Maybe a combination of both...but they know right now that the only way they are gonna get me out of here is in a box...so I got nothing to lose...but don't worry, I don't have a gun...so I gotta find another way.

jbw, You make very interesting remarks considering the power of social status. Even our language mirrors these patterns of social structures in which the relationships between concepts are more important than their content. If you have power in social structure, your words have power, no matter what they are and vice versa.

When I was a student I got into a lengthy and at times heated debate with a professor, because in my opinion he had a mistake in something. Everyone told to me that I shouldn?t do that, even if there is a mistake. I then understood that even though my social understanding is fairly good, I still don?t get this invisible power thing - relationships meaning more than the words - and thus I don?t mostly realize to bow for this empty king no matter how beneficial it would be for me.

Isn't it remarkable that even institutions that are supposed to develop and validate knowledge via the use of the scientific method operate a power hierarchy where validation of knowledge is deemed less important than observing the "laws" of social power?

Have a read of this story: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-to ... d=11276485
The most shocking part is the commentary from a TV news anchor:
"The simple message in life is what? When you go to school you follow the rules," Mr Hosking said. "That's what you learn at school, that's how you learn to be a functioning member of the community."

To top it off, the story continues as follows: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=11283669
A St John's College board of trustees member who led the decision to suspend student Lucan Battison is refusing to comment following the discovery of a photo of him as a long-haired student of Lucan's age - while attending the same school.

Noam Chomsky correctly refers to the educational system as indoctrination of the young. Independent critical thinking is not high on the agenda. I was quite surprised to see that in primary school my son learned about persuasive writing before learning about the scientific method.