[wpietri]

The most obvious category are things that have already been made illegal. Like Ponzi schemes. Or waste management companies that engage in illegal dumping. Or the Chinese food companies that were substituting melamine for edible protein.

From there you get more subtle categories. Cigarette companies are legal, but sinister. People making magnetic healing bracelets: Do they believe in what they're selling? Some do, but I'm sure some just ship whatever sells. There are many financial companies that I expect are effectively sociopathic, in that as long as they make a profit, they don't care what happens around them.

An interesting parallel is the charm and manipulative ability that people associate with sociopaths. In corporations, that's the advertising and PR departments.

[cinquemb]

Hmm, so in some sense all corporations (that at least have advertising and PR) can be considered sociopathic?

[wpietri]

I wouldn't say that. Everybody is at least a little charming and manipulative, but that doesn't make everybody sociopaths. It's the lack of conscience and the focus on self-gratification.

[cinquemb]

So what is a person (or corporation) when they can clearly distinguish between right from wrong (has a conscience within their specific social context), but focuses on self gratification (or profit)?

[wpietri]

I don't think being able to distinguish right and wrong is sufficient to say that somebody has a conscience. They also have to care. In particular, sociopaths are characterized by a lack of empathy and remorse, not by a lack of understanding.

Anyhow, if you tend a little in that direction, you're an asshole. A lot, and you're a sociopath. That's my view, anyhow.

[cinquemb]

Seeing this as your view, i think it is a fair assessment.

But there are some things that make me think a bit more:

[0]"They also have to care" [1]"sociopaths are characterized by a lack of empathy and remorse"

To establish one's caring ability [0], does one have to explicitly state that they care (to the public), or can that be a judgement coming from the massess from "whatever" basis makes up the moral code of their society that had been established by a relative minority group of people over time (which sometimes constitutes the tyranny of the majority)?

And again with [1], is this a self characterization, or an external one?

From the examples above by you before, it seems like sociopaths are more than likely in a position of power that was given by a group of people. If so, what does that say about the group of people (or massess) that empower the sociopaths?