| || |
That's how sociopaths work. The very stupidity of your question demonstrates that it is you that has no understanding of which you speak. You want to pretend that there is some "good person" hiding inside the monster. There isn't. Under a sociopath...is just a sociopath. Now, here's the thing. Can you teach a sociopath to mimic the behaviours of a "good person"? Sure. But he will never be capable of the empathy, or the emotional connections necessary to make those mimicked behaviours real.
Which brings us to the question of what is "inherently good"? Is it just public behaviour that makes a person good, or is it motivation? Because if it is just public behaviour, then, sure. A sociopath can be a "good" person. But if it is just public behaviour, then you are admitting that "good", and "evil" are nothing more than societal labels.
The only thing that is good without qualification is the good will, Kant says. All other candidates for an intrinsic good have problems, Kant argues. Courage, health, and wealth can all be used for ill purposes, Kant argues, and therefore cannot be intrinsically good. Happiness is not intrinsically good because even being worthy of happiness, Kant says, requires that one possess a good will. The good will is the only unconditional good despite all encroachments. Misfortune may render someone incapable of achieving her goals, for instance, but the goodness of her will remains.
It's right there.
Goodness cannot arise from acting on impulse or natural inclination, even if impulse coincides with duty. It can only arise from conceiving of one’s actions in a certain way. A shopkeeper, Kant says, might do what is in accord with duty and not overcharge a child. Kant argues, “it is not sufficient to do that which should be morally good that it conform to the law; it must be done for the sake of the law.” (Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Akademie pagination 390) There is a clear moral difference between the shopkeeper that does it for his own advantage to keep from offending other customers and the shopkeeper who does it from duty and the principle of honesty.(Ibid., 398) Likewise, in another of Kant’s carefully studied examples, the kind act of the person who overcomes a natural lack of sympathy for other people out of respect for duty has moral worth, whereas the same kind act of the person who naturally takes pleasure in spreading joy does not. A person’s moral worth cannot be dependent upon what nature endowed them with accidentally. The selfishly motivated shopkeeper and the naturally kind person both act on equally subjective and accidental grounds. What matters to morality is that the actor think about their actions in the right manner.