Before I begin, I will first define three very important distinguishing terms, as leaving any ambiguity to this topic may cause confusion. Since morality is relative it needs a more objective measuring stick to even begin approaching it from any perspective.
Moral- in this case, to be moral is to behave in a way that, on average, people in society deem to be good and acceptable. Things that are generally agreed to be "wrong" by people in everyday life are not moral, but rather- immoral.
Immoral- Immoral behavior in this context is the opposite of moral. It goes against what is deemed good and acceptable in average everyday life and is generally seen as bad.
Ammoral- To be ammoral is to not care about morals, to be neutral. One could behave in a moral way but have no morals making them both moral and ammoral. Important distinguishment here.
Now, we all know that this site is sociopath community. Most people here identify with that label in some way, shape, or form. Be it by diagnosis or a pervasive exhibition the traits of the sociopath, they feel like it defines them. Others may also be here because they are banned everywhere else, or because the people here appeal more to their fancies- these do not matter- they still likely have some behavior that may be seen as sociopathic leading to being banned or preffering others that identify with the disorder. But, do the people here necessarily have "no morals"?
No morals is a common charge leveled against sociopaths and the like, or at the very least, scuffed morals. But, since morals are relative, anybody whom sees something as good or bad may be said to have morals. It seems the people making these definitions only take into account the definition given by majority opinion. Take, for example, ChallengeSeeker- she is objectively immoral in terms of society's view on it, amd in terms of that she is immoral. But, in terms of her own morals; that absolute freedom ought to be respected, she is absolutely moral. This is the issue when such relative and open ended words are used in common definitions of these types of disorders, the diagnosis may come down to the personal preference of the one making it. One shrink may say, for example, that a man who never gives away his money to anybody and keeps it all to himself may lack their personal moral of being given and let that contribute to a sociopath diagnoses, but another may see that as fair and even consider him exercising the right to do so to be moral, and thus declare him "normal". This is what is troubling about the field pf psychology, and it is absolutely dominated by diagnosises where morals play a part in the diagnosis, making the definition constantly shift as per the personal ideals of the person making it. You see this clear as day when pme individual, agrieved by the affronts of another, beligerantly declares "You are a sociopath!". What makes shrinks any different? Unless they are robots all programmed to use the same criteria, the relative terms in the diagnostic criteria will skew the definition towards their fancy. Just look at all the politically charged speculations from "experts" calling Trump every cluster B diagnosis under the sun. This, in my view, makes the definition of a sociopath and maybe even the whole psychology industry highly flawed, perhaps bunk?
Onto the morality of SC, I believe every person here has a unique set of morals, me included. Now, some may have more ideas than others but nobody has nothing. From my personal morals, I consider egotism to be fine, selfishness to be fine, but any mamipulation or causing others to feel distress as a result to be wrong if it was intentional, but for one to get angry at somebody expressing ego without malice is not fair. I consider it fine to disagree with me as well. I only particularly find Jim, CS, Trypt, and Scarlett to be highly immoral due to their ideas on relationships that go against my morals, but most are ammoral to mine because they disagree but do not go against. Except Jim and CS, whpse views on children and sexuality are things I believe are existentially repulsive. I believe certain people like Tony are a bit more with me on this, as well as Primal. I think me and Xadem share some. My morals are not the same as the societal stereotype. This does not make me bad, this does not make me a sociopath, it makes me a free individual with a unique thought, and I believe a lot of people here fall into the same boat. Keep the inconsistencies of the sociopath criteria in mind, and remember it is ultimately a made up word to categorize you; things of a nature I also find to go against my morals. You need no such word. It is ok for some or even most to dislike how you behave or think, the ultimate goal shpuld be tp work towards your happiness through ypur interests and pursuits and personality, and those who you VOLUNTARILY would like to bring with you on your journey and who will accept you and vice versa, other than that, forget about the "haters" and carry on.
That is my view on SC and morality.
.
