Is Atheism Compatible with Natural Rights?

[Sorry!]

Without refuting or condoning the line of reasoning, I'll at least try to set you stright on some of the internal logic.

Please just pretend that each of my sentences is prefaced with 'The idea to this God thing is that...'Because the is the creator, and thus gets to make that call.
Since he is the creator of nature, he gets to make the laws too.Don't forget that, while he laid these laws out, he gave us the will to abide my them or flout them as we see fit. It is yet to be seen what interest he has in the choice we make.

That's not the point of my post.

The point of my post is why can't it just be that WE made the call. If we can justify these natural laws without invoking God then why is it necessary to invoke God?

 

[DaveC426913]

That's not the point of my post.

The point of my post is why can't it just be that WE made the call.

Well, it can be. if you're an atheist. The point I was making is that trying to out-logic God's motives doesn't cause him to disappear in a puff of logic.

(Not that I'm claiming that's what you were trying to do.)

 

[Sorry!]

Well, it can be. if you're an atheist. The point I was making is that trying to out-logic God's motives doesn't cause him to disappear in a puff of logic.

(Not that I'm claiming that's what you were trying to do.)

As well, your claim that God can do anything he was goes against the fundamental belief of God that would create such a moral code.

All religions that I know (that have moral codes based on God) believe that God gave these rights based on what is right not just because he randomly felt that he should do it just because he can do whatever. So God couldn't have made it any other way (right and wrong apparently in these beliefs surpass God)

++ Anyways that's beside the point my posts intention was to show that atheist can in fact believe in natural rights and in this post here I noticed that you agree with that. So the OPs question has been answered problem solved!

 

[JoeDawg]

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1342-Natural_Rights.aspx

"he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational."

What a load of horse manure. Nature forbids nothing of the kind.

In fact nature is ruled by chaos, and before you can even decide what is 'rational', within that chaos, you have to have an idea of the kind of goal you wish to achieve. And the goal will likely be arbitrary. Survival in nature is about being adaptable to change... and lucky with regards to random events.

If you want to live fast and die young, then your idea of what natural rights are will reflect that. If you want security in your old age... your idea of natural rights will be very different.

If you want to eat meat, or have an abortion, your idea of what the natural 'right to life' means will be very distinct from those who are pro-life vegans.

While the goals you have will likely fit within a distribution based on human needs. Political and ethical views, even amongst people of the same religion, vary quite a bit. Put two atheists in a room and you'll have 3 opinions on anyone topic.

Being an atheist doesn't really address any of these issues, it simply eliminates the supernatural from your decision making. There is still a wide range of human behaviors within that. Even assuming one takes an unemotional, completely pragmatic and rational stategy towards life (not really the way most people would choose to live), the kind of life you 'want', and the kind of life you are willing to put up with, will really be the determining factor. Human beings are mostly not that rational. And nature loves to knock over the rational sandcastles people build.

The 'natural' part of natural rights is mainly just rhetoric, as most people quite naturally don't actually have them.

 

[wofsy]

One orthodox friend of mine considers morality to be the following of God's commands. One obeys God in order to avoid the cycle of incarnation and to rise into Heaven. In Heaven life is blessed with bliss that naturally derives from having completed God's wishes and reaping the rewards that he bestows.

In my opinion, he follows his moral path in order to avoid suffering and to achieve happiness. At core, the motivation for morality is reward and punishment.

I also think that he believes that there is an intrinsic ability for people to feel happiness when they obey God and to suffer when they reject him. This implies a theory of human nature.

 

[the_awesome]

All religions that I know (that have moral codes based on God) believe that God gave these rights based on what is right not just because he randomly felt that he should do it just because he can do whatever.

Ah, a classic misunderstanding. As far as the Christian God goes, God created the law and so on because it is based on his character. It is in his character not to steal and so on, so he instilled that into us. I guess we can look at it like a fish in a bowl, the fish doesn't know the world outside the bowl (or so we can infer), so we can't explain everything about God and his character. So I guess the question begs. What about free will? Well...that's an easy one. In order for free will to exist, evil MUST exist. So you can see why men generally do bad things. The law was created, including morality and ethics because we were created in God's image, to basically be like him I guess.

The point of my post is why can't it just be that WE made the call. If we can justify these natural laws without invoking God then why is it necessary to invoke God?

Well I personally hate naturalism. Just because you can use your senses to explain the world doesn't mean that God didn't make it. Let's refer to 1000 years ago. Lightning was mysterious. People didn't know what it was so they probably said "God did it"...well we finally figured out how lightning was made using a natural process (i dunno...friction?)...but that still doesn't rule out God. You see...if you believe in God...then you'd know he gave you your 5 senses so that you can basically explore/discover the world he made, the one you are part of. So in other words...God created EVERYTHING, including the natural laws. He gave you the ability to recognize these and to create your own "version of reality" I guess.

 

[DaveC426913]

The point of my post is why can't it just be that WE made the call. If we can justify these natural laws without invoking God then why is it necessary to invoke God?

Well ,there may be a practical problem in getting a consensus of six billion voters, many of whom are yet to be born, and many of whom are dying.

 

[DanP]

You are talking about a white man's caricature of "primitive savage" people that arose in early colonial times - a justification for oppressive measures.

"Liberty is a wonderful thing, as long as it doesn't become the liberty of another being to enter in your home, kill your child, rape your wife and make you watch all this."

 

[wofsy]

In Medieval and Renaissance philosophy the problem of morality derived from the concept of Nature. Each of God's creations follows its own Nature. Except for man who has been given free choice, all other creatures follow their Nature without choice.For this reason they are "innocent" and can not be immoral or moral. The star flickers in the firmament without choice. The sunflower turns towards the Sun, the robin feeds worms to its chicks without choice.

Man on he other hand has been given a unique ability, free choice and it therefore is no longer clear what his Nature is. Renaissance philosophers believed that man could choose his Nature. He could live like a beast or an angel or even strive to be like God. For them morality came from which choice was made. One is enlightened and free if one chooses to emulate God, ignorant and a prisoner of habit and reflex if one chooses to live like a beast.

For me this way of thinking is right. The virtue of my life has always come down to how I make choices and which choices enhance my freedom and reduce my routine behavior. I have noticed with my children that helping them to have confidence in their own choices has helped them not only to live but has given them an inner sense of self worth.

A true Atheist from this point of view would be someone who felt that there is no intrinsic human capacity for free choice. Examples of Atheistic theories might be John Locke's tabula rasa, Freud's theory that our unconscious determines our behavior and Marx's materialistic imperative. Interestingly, it has been argued that the horrors of the 20'th century come from these modern day denials of human freedom and thereby of moral responsibility. Without freedom morality is impossible, so the argument goes. Also the belief in a God that determines every event and does not allow freedom is essentially the same Atheistic thinking. I suspect that for the Renaissance man, this idea would deny God of his ultimate virtue.

I really think that the question of morality is the same as the question of human freedom.
Questions of right and wrong, good and bad, all start with this.

Natural rights seems to be a different idea. Natural rights are in this line of thinking the right to pursue one's nature. In the case of man, this is the right to be free but in the case of an alligator it may be the right to inhabit a swamp. Much of environmentalism can be justified in this way and environmentalism really extends this idea of rights to the whole planet.

I believe that many people feel that they are moral and good axiomatically just like my orthodox friend. While I agree with such dicta as discrimination is bad, war is bad, sending your children to college is good, saving the environment is good, to me these attitudes tend to be arbitrary and fundamentally unjustified.

 

[BobG]

"Liberty is a wonderful thing, as long as it doesn't become the liberty of another being to enter in your home, kill your child, rape your wife and make you watch all this."

I guess it depends on how you interpret that phrase.

Does a person have a right to enter your home, kill your child and rape your wife without the fear that you'll shoot him? No, of course not. You have a right to prevent someone from entering your home, killing your child, and raping your wife.

Should it be possible for a person to enter your home, kill your child, and rape your wife? Yes, it should. For one thing, thinking you could make it impossible is unrealistic - you can just reduce the risk. Secondly, liberty is worth it.

Obviously, the idea that the quality of life difference between a riskier liberty and a safer lack of liberty isn't a unanimous opinion. In fact, people in a country become very willing to give up more and more liberty as the chances of dying violently increase.

For a Tsutsi in Rwanda, or for a Jew in Germany during and immediately prior to WWII, trading liberty for safety could be seen as a very good trade. For an American, where 1 out of every 100,000 is killed by airplanes flying into buildings, the trade off isn't quite so clear cut.

With a risk twice as great as being struck by asteroid, many Americans would give willingly give up liberty if the risk of dying in a terrorist attack would be reduced to what? Half as great as being struck by asteroid, a fourth as great? The questions about how much the risk has been or will be reduced have never really been answered. There was just the promise that actions that seemed somewhat unconstitutional would reduce the threat of terrorist attack - by some undefined amount.

With a risk of 100,000 to 1 for each terrorist attack, many Americans would also be unwilling to give up liberty even if there were a terrorist attack every year. At that rate, the chances of dying in a terrorist attack would be about 1300 to 1 - still 15 times less likely than dying in a car crash. Many Americans would find it absurd to give up liberty for such a small risk.

In fact, for a short period of time (less than 5 years), America could probably handle a WTC attack once a month before I would even consider reducing liberty to combat the threat. That would be about equal to the rate that Americans died in WWII. It would be less than civilian casualty rate of Great Britain in WWII, mostly due to German bombing (about 1 of every 713 British civilians died because of the war), and that casualty rate just strengthened British resolve.

I guess the idea of liberty and risk need to be quantified, since there are situations where DanP's comments would be very true - I'm just not sure there are very many.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

"Men's freedoms can conflict, and when they do, one man's freedom must be limited to preserve another's--as a Supreme Court Justice once put it, "My freedom to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin."

-Friedman

 

[DanP]

I guess it depends on how you interpret that phrase.

Does a person have a right to enter your home, kill your child and rape your wife without the fear that you'll shoot him? No, of course not. You have a right to prevent someone from entering your home, killing your child, and raping your wife.

Should it be possible for a person to enter your home, kill your child, and rape your wife? Yes, it should. For one thing, thinking you could make it impossible is unrealistic - you can just reduce the risk. Secondly, liberty is worth it.

I agree.

I am adherent to the "social contract" theory of the sate. Sadly, I do not believe that having humans bound only by their conscience is a realistic social model. Not now, and not in the foreseeable future.

In the "social contract" theory, humans renounce a part of their natural liberties and transfer them to the state. By doing this, they gain a great deal socially and politically.

IMO, a clear example of this is law enforcement. Should one wrongs you, and kill one of your beloved ones, should you have the liberty to take law enforcement in your hand, hunt him till the end of the Earth and kill him and take his scalp afterward to display it ? (lets assume for the theory case that you wasn't home to shoot the bastard and you can't invoke any doctrine like self defense)

While I do consider this my natural right, this is something which is illegal in any democracy I know about. This is an example of natural right which we humans renounced and transferred to the state. The state will enforce law. It is illegal for you to do so. We (as in human collective) believe its for the best. Yet this is one lost liberty.

I guess the idea of liberty and risk need to be quantified,

I am also a strong supporter of the human right to bear arms. I find possessing this right as natural as the fact day follows night. Yet it seems that not everybody agrees with me. It seems that serious percentages of population and their representatives are against this fundamental right, and believe that banning guns would make for a better world. Are they right ? I really don't know. I know that I consider the right to bear arms fundamental. They don't.

What is extremely delicate is to find the right balance between the rights and liberties you transfer to the sate and the rights and liberties you retain so the society progress as unhindered as possible. I guess this is where the gist of the problem resides. And probably we will never be able to make everybody happy.

 

[mollymae]

I agree.
IMO, a clear example of this is law enforcement. Should one wrongs you, and kill one of your beloved ones, should you have the liberty to take law enforcement in your hand, hunt him till the end of the Earth and kill him and take his scalp afterward to display it ? (lets assume for the theory case that you wasn't home to shoot the bastard and you can't invoke any doctrine like self defense)

While I do consider this my natural right, this is something which is illegal in any democracy I know about. This is an example of natural right which we humans renounced and transferred to the state. The state will enforce law. It is illegal for you to do so. We (as in human collective) believe its for the best. Yet this is one lost liberty.

Indeed, and there's a big difference between enforcing law yourself and having a third party (government) do it for you. Just the other day I was thinking about how if someone hurt a loved one, I would absolutely want them dead. However, I do not support the death penalty because I'm not comfortable with the state having that power.

 

[wofsy]

what about the issue of economic freedom? Many view this as the definition of liberty. Yet should speculators be allowed to create bubbles whose collapse triggers a depression and causes suffering for others?

 

[BobG]

I haven't done more than just skim the replies so far, because just one question comes to mind...if something is truly a "natural" right, shouldn't it be fully independent of any religious beliefs? Or, for that matter, of any other type of beliefs either? Perhaps this is a good test of whether something is a natural or universal right, if it persists in the absence of any special belief system.

That doesn't mean a natural right couldn't exist in some special belief system. Somehow, there's some dividing line in today's society where religion and science have to be completely separate and distinct from each other. If there were any overlap, both might be too offended to exist any more.

The earliest science we had generally was religion, where any "good ideas" that improved the lives of the group could be incorporated into the group's religious beliefs. In fact, the fact that it resulted in good results was the primary evidence that God(s) considered the act to be good. God(s) reward humans for doing good things and punish them for doing bad things.

The only difference is improvement in the scientific method. Scientific beliefs should be based on objective evidence of a sufficient sample size that the results are actually reliable, etc. Too many old wives tales get incorporated into religion without adequate support and followers can wind up performing pointless rituals, or worse yet, follow rituals that actually have an adverse effect in an environment different from the one the ritual was invented in.

Ironically, the things most commonly referred to as natural rights are those things that might not improve the overall good of the group. Being forced into labor for group would surely mean more things of common good were created, right? Allowing members of the group a choice about what they do with their own time improves each member's quality of life, but at the cost that the members produce less products for the group.

So, perhaps natural rights are things that require some sort of belief system, whether religious or other, in order to exist since they seem to draw the boundary between an individual's duty to society and his rights to his own pleasure.

 

[DanP]

what about the issue of economic freedom? Many view this as the definition of liberty. Yet should speculators be allowed to create bubbles whose collapse triggers a depression and causes suffering for others?

The issue is, you are innocent until proven guilty. You can't limit existing economic rights (and thus interfere with the free market too severely ) based on speculations of what investors do and what their ultimate motives are.

That being said, trade is covered today by a multitude of laws. Civil, commercial laws and sometimes criminal laws set boundaries for trade and commercial activities. The effects ranges from governing simple contracts to anti-trust laws and international exchanges.

IMO at the time being there does not exist a pure free market system on Earth. Governments still regulate markets in certain areas, either directly though laws , either indirectly by taxation.

 

[zakbrown0308]

Now, one has to define "natural." An atheist does not believe in any sort of "god" and thus the only natural state of order is darwinism, which is not compatible with the idea of natural rights. However, an atheist would be able to argue that they can create their own "natural order" (including one that would ensure equal rights for all humans) and it would be just as legitimate as any societies invented "god." In otherwords, an atheist does not have any need for, and indeed may look down upon, the idea of natural rights for the simple fact that he understands that equality and altruism are the responsibility of humanity, not a "god."

 

[ideasrule]

Well I personally hate naturalism. Just because you can use your senses to explain the world doesn't mean that God didn't make it. Let's refer to 1000 years ago. Lightning was mysterious. People didn't know what it was so they probably said "God did it"...well we finally figured out how lightning was made using a natural process (i dunno...friction?)...but that still doesn't rule out God. You see...if you believe in God...then you'd know he gave you your 5 senses so that you can basically explore/discover the world he made, the one you are part of. So in other words...God created EVERYTHING, including the natural laws. He gave you the ability to recognize these and to create your own "version of reality" I guess.

Note that the question was "why is it necessary to invoke God", not "why is it not necessary to completely eliminate God from the picture".

 

[Noxide]

Is atheism incompatable with the concept of natural rights?

Most (or at least some) adherents to natural rights argue that human rights come from a god, or that there is an absolute morality that is the basis of natural rights. Atheists obviously do not believe in a god and most would probably not believe in an absolute morality. So how can an atheist justify the concept of natural rights?

The only reason you have any rights is because the society in which you live has granted them to you. Do you think that one collection of atoms has privilege over another collection of atoms? Surely you do not, and if you do then... lol

 

[ideasrule]

Most (or at least some) adherents to natural rights argue that human rights come from a god, or that there is an absolute morality that is the basis of natural rights.

Natural rights are usually called human rights for a reason: you have them because you're a human being, not because anybody wanted you to have them. If I have a right simply because God said I do, that right would be very UNnatural.

Note that the idea of natural rights did not come about for religious reasons. Many of the Enlightenment thinkers who advocated individual liberties distrusted religion. The Enlightenment was characterized by rationalism and adherence to the scientific method, not by superstition or fundamentalism. If anything, the church hindered the adoption of individual rights; Voltaire attacked it as a bastion of superstition and intolerance.

Religion is shaped by the prevailing morals of the time, not the other way round. Basically, God is said to have whatever morals and beliefs happen to be cool.

 

[wofsy]

Natural rights are usually called human rights for a reason: you have them because you're a human being, not because anybody wanted you to have them. If I have a right simply because God said I do, that right would be very UNnatural.

Note that the idea of natural rights did not come about for religious reasons. Many of the Enlightenment thinkers who advocated individual liberties distrusted religion. The Enlightenment was characterized by rationalism and adherence to the scientific method, not by superstition or fundamentalism. If anything, the church hindered the adoption of individual rights; Voltaire attacked it as a bastion of superstition and intolerance.

Religion is shaped by the prevailing morals of the time, not the other way round. Basically, God is said to have whatever morals and beliefs happen to be cool.

I think that the idea of natural rights in the enlightenment and even before in the Renaissance and Medieval times, derived from a notion of human Nature. Man's rights generally were based upon the right to fulfill his nature or to have his nature controlled for the benefit of society. Religion played a role because God as the creator endowed man with his nature. People who denied that man's nature was fundamentally good were tilting towards atheism in my opinion.

 

[RazorRose]

I've read most of these posts but it sounds like it boils down to a few elementary things. Perspective, "Morals", and belief in one thing or the other.
say for instance an elderly man who doesn't believe in god and is an atheist saves a young child's live. purely an act of good will no thought for self motivation in his head. and then another old man sees a child about to die, now this old man believes in a higher power, and so he goes and saves the child, even if it wasn't conscious he was still influenced by that subconscious scale that takes place if i do this amount of good deeds. or i should be a good person because he is watching.

had more i'll edit later apologies i gtg.

 

[Evolver]

Is atheism incompatable with the concept of natural rights?

Most (or at least some) adherents to natural rights argue that human rights come from a god, or that there is an absolute morality that is the basis of natural rights. Atheists obviously do not believe in a god and most would probably not believe in an absolute morality. So how can an atheist justify the concept of natural rights?

Morality came from a god? Have you read the bible? God breaks his own commandments many times over. He kills people and destroys cities that he deems unworthy, yet punishes for killing. He demands people to worship him or else burns them in hell... a place he was responsible for creating. He also not only supposedly created humanity... but also gave them the ability to fail through temptation... He is clearly a contradiction that could only have come about through the minds of enterprising humans. God sounds more like a wrathful dictator than a moral paradigm, and if he is real we are all in very big trouble.

As for morals... have you ever heard of secular humanism? It's a group of people that have moral codes for the sake of humanity, none of which believe in a God in any literal sense. Many great people considered themselves secular humanists... Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins & John Lennon are among them.

 

[wofsy]

Morality came from a god? Have you read the bible? God breaks his own commandments many times over. He kills people and destroys cities that he deems unworthy, yet punishes for killing. He demands people to worship him or else burns them in hell... a place he was responsible for creating. He also not only supposedly created humanity... but also gave them the ability to fail through temptation... He is clearly a contradiction that could only have come about through the minds of enterprising humans. God sounds more like a wrathful dictator than a moral paradigm, and if he is real we are all in very big trouble.

As for morals... have you ever heard of secular humanism? It's a group of people that have moral codes for the sake of humanity, none of which believe in a God in any literal sense. Many great people considered themselves secular humanists... Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins & John Lennon are among them.

It would be interesting to know the history of secular humanism its roots and its assumptions about human Nature.

 

[Evolver]

It would be interesting to know the history of secular humanism its roots and its assumptions about human Nature.

It's all very well documented: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

 

[Agent M27]

As an atheist I have had this discussion with both believers and non-believers and I have come to a fork in the road. I read through most of the posts, but I could not find a rubric for what exactly defines a "natural right". To me certain rights, almost all in fact, seem to be subjective from the frame of refrence of the person deciding what those rights are. In the very elementary sense, a right implies a preference to one group/individual/thing over another. I believe there are a set of morals by which most people in society follow, but these are not one in the same as a right. Am I way off base here? I know this may sound sociopathic, but I don't feel I have the right to live anymore than the next person, just the humanistic moral obligation to not kill each other.

Joe

 

[wofsy]

As an atheist I have had this discussion with both believers and non-believers and I have come to a fork in the road. I read through most of the posts, but I could not find a rubric for what exactly defines a "natural right". To me certain rights, almost all in fact, seem to be subjective from the frame of refrence of the person deciding what those rights are. In the very elementary sense, a right implies a preference to one group/individual/thing over another. I believe there are a set of morals by which most people in society follow, but these are not one in the same as a right. Am I way off base here? I know this may sound sociopathic, but I don't feel I have the right to live anymore than the next person, just the humanistic moral obligation to not kill each other.

Joe

In my post I proposed the idea that natural rights are the right to pursue one's nature. This is an old view and generally assumes that man is naturally good. The problem for us perhaps is to think about what our nature is without theological assumptions.

 

[Evo]

In my post I proposed the idea that natural rights are the right to pursue one's nature. This is an old view and generally assumes that man is naturally good. The problem for us perhaps is to think about what our nature is without theological assumptions.

Natural rights, in reality, are what are granted by man. Think about it. No one has a right to own land if that is not allowed where they are born.

I really have to say that I am sick of people thinking that if you don't adhere to some religion that you can't have basic compassion for your fellow man. When I think of the atrocities commited by religious fanatics that supposedly were instructed to kill by some "god" it makes me wonder how people can sweep these things under the rug like they didn't happen.

Religion played a role because God as the creator endowed man with his nature. People who denied that man's nature was fundamentally good were tilting towards atheism in my opinion.

What??

 

[wofsy]

Natural rights, in reality, are what are granted by man. Think about it. No one has a right to own land if that is not allowed where they are born.

I really have to say that I am sick of people thinking that if you don't adhere to some religion that you can't have basic compassion for your fellow man. When I think of the atrocities commited by religious fanatics that supposedly were instructed to kill by some "god" it makes me wonder how people can sweep these things under the rug like they didn't happen.

What??

For the What? I was just explaining what the historical view was. You are not understanding the statement.Natural rights have nothing to do with compassion or atrocities or the right to own land.

BTW: What is wrong with atrocities? Why is compassion good? You seem to be assuming that your morality is correct - without justification or question.

What about the way Ancient Sparta ran its society? I guess we should all know naturally that that was bad.

 

[Evo]

For the What? I was just explaining what the historical view was. You are not understanding the statement.Natural rights have nothing to do with compassion or atrocities or the right to own land.

BTW: What is wrong with atrocities? Why is compassion good? You seem to be assuming that your morality is correct - without justification or question.

What about the way Ancient Sparta ran its society? I guess we should all know naturally that that was bad.

I guess my point is that atheists are good because they want to do good, not because they fear supernatural punishment. I am tired of the "atheists can't have morals because they don't believe in a particular religion". If I have mistaken what you were saying, I apologize.

 

[JoeDawg]

If I have mistaken what you were saying, I apologize.

I'm not really understanding it either.

 

[Pythagorean]

BTW: What is wrong with atrocities? Why is compassion good? You seem to be assuming that your morality is correct - without justification or question.

It's pretty much every healthy brain's opinion that atrocities are bad and compassion is good. This shouldn't need to be justified.

 

[Hurkyl]

It's pretty much every healthy brain's opinion that atrocities are bad and compassion is good.

Where "healthy brain" is, by definition, one that opines that atrocities are bad and compassion good?

 

[Pythagorean]

Where "healthy brain" is, by definition, one that opines that atrocities are bad and compassion good?

Not necessarily. There's plenty of physiological components from a neural point of view that facilitate what a healthy brain is. Here's some well-known examples of atrocity involving direct brain damage.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jim_fallon_exploring_the_mind_of_a_killer.html

Sociopaths are known to have abnormalities in the frontal lobe:

This area of the brain is responsible for "self-control, planning, judgment, the balance of individual versus social needs, and many other essential functions underlying effective social intercourse".

http://www.viewzone.com/sociopath.html

 

[JoeDawg]

Sociopaths are known to have abnormalities in the frontal lobe

Some people have abnormalities in the brain that cause high iq, and unusual creativity.

Being a sociopath is not always a disadvantage.
Normal and average, do not equal natural.