The real question is where that monstrous joke and corresponding laugh at the end falls.
But I would say Abiyoyo is all except malice, which you can't attribute to something that can't choose between good and evil, which makes me wonder if Cathy is actually that type of monster, too. Maybe she is more uncontrolled? What do you think?
If she's a sociopath, then she is in control of her actions; she just doesn't care whom she hurts while performing them. If she is more uncontrolled, would she be able to act with the required exactness that kills her parents?
She understands prudence, but that does not mean that she can control her evil thoughts. The way she acts reveals a control of how to effect a plan, but not control over the plan itself. In other words, she is not able to control the decision to kill her parents because she has no understanding of good and evil. This is different than someone who understands good and evil but acts to kill anyway. In that case, it would not be motivated by moral ignorance, but rather willful malice.
I don't know. I think she's fully capable of mitigating her evil, she just chooses not to, because evil is more self-serving and/or entertaining. I think she could definitely have chosen to not kill her parents, she's just incapable of feeling guilt or remorse for her actions. The definition of sociopath (and I still believe she is a high qualifier for the label) is one without empathy. This has nothing to do with control. Is empathy a congenital--by nature--trait?
On a side note, some have called empathy (and I'm not even trying to find the reference--sorry--lazy, I guess) the highest form of intelligence. This doesn't exactly bear on the discussion, but it's interesting, I think.
The real question is where that monstrous joke and corresponding laugh at the end falls.
ReplyDeleteBut I would say Abiyoyo is all except malice, which you can't attribute to something that can't choose between good and evil, which makes me wonder if Cathy is actually that type of monster, too. Maybe she is more uncontrolled? What do you think?
If she's a sociopath, then she is in control of her actions; she just doesn't care whom she hurts while performing them. If she is more uncontrolled, would she be able to act with the required exactness that kills her parents?
ReplyDeleteShe understands prudence, but that does not mean that she can control her evil thoughts. The way she acts reveals a control of how to effect a plan, but not control over the plan itself. In other words, she is not able to control the decision to kill her parents because she has no understanding of good and evil. This is different than someone who understands good and evil but acts to kill anyway. In that case, it would not be motivated by moral ignorance, but rather willful malice.
ReplyDeleteI don't know. I think she's fully capable of mitigating her evil, she just chooses not to, because evil is more self-serving and/or entertaining. I think she could definitely have chosen to not kill her parents, she's just incapable of feeling guilt or remorse for her actions. The definition of sociopath (and I still believe she is a high qualifier for the label) is one without empathy. This has nothing to do with control. Is empathy a congenital--by nature--trait?
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, some have called empathy (and I'm not even trying to find the reference--sorry--lazy, I guess) the highest form of intelligence. This doesn't exactly bear on the discussion, but it's interesting, I think.