>>13376766Secondly, a possible counter-argument that "they deserve compassion because they are suffering from a psychiatric disorder, thus they shouldn't be denied full human rights", is also something I find fails to convince me. Technically, sociopaths aren't the ones who suffer, it's the "normal" people in their environment who do the suffering - a complete reversal of conventional neurosis or mental illness.
This also avoids the serious issue of discrimination against mental illness - technically, sociopaths are sane. They cannot be cured, since they don't (in my view) have an illness. They just have a complete disregard for others' rights, viewing other humans as mere objects to exploit as a means to their own ends, which is done in a cold, calculating and deliberate manner, as an enduring personality trait - while absolving themselves from accountability. Viewing them as "ill" is misleading, to put it mildly.
Therefore, I would argue that sociopaths do not deserve full human rights, and if they are to be granted rights at all, it would be better if it were on a considerably more limited basis than non-sociopaths.
Such in my view would include - and not limited to - many of the kind of rights which afford protection from harm from others; an assumption of good faith in dealings with others (perhaps including the legal "innocent until proven guilty") given the propensity for relentless pathological lying; the same amount of the right to "basic respect", and so forth.
This may be a somewhat radical conclusion, and its application may even imply promoting a radical shake-up of the current social order; however in light of the facts and basic intuitions which justify the concept of human rights and its applications, in my view this conclusion seems to be justified.
