If they're voluntarily seeking help, then that's different, of course. How often does that happen? (Genuine question. I have no idea, and I'd love to find out.)
Assume we have some sort of sociopath detector which works from birth. Assume further that we have a treatment for sociopathy. It sounds like you'd be in favor of using that treatment on people who are fine with their state of being and who don't want to be... modified.
At one time in history, black people were considered mentally inferior or inherently violent. Most black people lived their lives without harming anyone at all. In the same way, most sociopaths currently live their lives without harming anyone. It's too easy to apply the sort of justifications that you're applying now to justify why people should be changed.
How far should we take this? Should it be mandated by the state that a parent must treat their child for sociopathy in the same way vaccinations are mandatory? I am wholly in favor of the latter. But how can anyone be in favor of the former? Vaccinations don't change behavior, whereas making someone "not sociopathic" certainly would.
People are people, and until they harm someone else, they should be allowed to live their lives.
I haven't suggested that there be some kind of mandated treatment for anti-social individuals, I just think we should try to have a better understanding of how a person can lack empathy.
Yes, this is based on assumptions and value judgments, mostly on this weird notion I have of not wanting to be killed or harmed by people that don't particularly care if they hurt others. Like, I don't hate lions or grizzly bears. I don't even think they're evil. I still would like to avoid living in close proximity to them.
They don't have to show genuine affection. A lot of sociopaths fake it, and probably most of them do a good job of it. Perhaps faking it is even the path to a 'cure' for sociopathy.
I haven't seen any studies showing that sociopaths are more likely to raise dysfunctional children. I do suspect that they probably are more likely, but unless the correlation is very strong, and the children are very dysfunctional, I don't think it is worth it to try and 'out' sociopaths and restrict them from having children.
Based on your language ('at best, will be able to put food on the table'), I think you are overestimating the negative impact of having a sociopath for a parent compared to having, for example, a really empathic alcoholic parent.
There are various contemporary usages of the term. Robert Hare claimed in a 1999 popular science book that sociopathy and psychopathy are often used interchangeably, but in some cases the term sociopathy is preferred because it is less likely than is psychopathy to be confused with psychosis, whereas in other cases which term is used may "reflect the user's views on the origins and determinates of the disorder". Hare contended that the term sociopathy is preferred by those that see the causes as due to social factors and early environment, and the term psychopathy preferred by those who believe that there are psychological, biological, and genetic factors involved in addition to environmental factors.[81] Hare also provides his own definitions: he describes psychopathy as not having a sense of empathy or morality, but sociopathy as only differing in sense of right and wrong from the average person.
The common denominator in most definitions of sociopath seems to be a lack of guilt or remorse. Contrast that with:
A sociopath, at best, will be able to put food on the table, but they will never be able to show genuine affection.
I don't understand how this follows from a lack of guilt.
Can it be true that a lack of ability to feel guilt makes someone an unfit parent, and that they should therefore lose their children?
Where does it stop? For example, if we can detect but not treat sociopaths, then should we abort children who we know will become sociopaths?
There are all kinds of issues that arise if people hold the view that sociopathy is a disease which should be treated. At some point, it's impossible to avoid the question of whether people should be treated against their will for the good of society. Doesn't it seem like "people should be able to live freely until they harm others" is somewhat more preferable to letting others define whether your personality should be modified before you've done anything wrong?
Not all of them all the time, of course. And some of them never. But the same could be said of pedophiles. Whatever you may think of the DSM, sociopathy is listed as a disorder. It is associated with violent crime and crimes against humanity.
Or, look at it this way: Let's say you're not a sociopath and a taking MDMA is just a pleasant experience. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to administer it prophylactically? Or in vocations, like policing, where there's a large risk of developing sociopathy. Might make your next flight less dicey.
That being said, if we could replace the attraction with a more statistically normal one tomorrow, I would say to do so because it would make the world a better place.
It's pretty dicey to just say "it's a disorder in the DSM associated with (negative things) and therefore we should push for administration of treatment to otherwise healthy/happy people."
It isn't too long ago now that being gay was also in the DSM. Respected scientists claimed all sorts of "harm" that the "gay lifestyle" caused to people in it and outside of it.
I suppose my question is: your logic would you suggest that it is worthwhile or valuable to administer prophylactic treatment to every DSM disorder, for those considered "at risk." You assert that MDMA is "just a pleasant experience", but I'd counterclaim that no drug is always just a pleasant experience, and you always need to consider the side effects (which for MDMA read like the side effects of many legal psychiatric drugs that affect the seratonin/dopamine/norepinephrine system). Keeping in mind that psychiatric disorders are some of the few disorders where the consent of the patient still isn't absolutely legally necessary to administer treatment, that means that you are arguing that these should be at least considered for administration to actively unwilling patients.
Given the difficulty of diagnosing these illnesses in the first place and the possibility of misdiagnosis (see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment), I think it's important to be careful of the arguments made for treatments. Treatments often are applied to involuntary patients (who may be considered incapable), and both the DSM and psychology (as a science) are not some be-all, end-all bible of things that can be stated to be definitively negative or harmful or unwanted which exist outside of the culture they're formed in.
I take your point about the dubiousness of some parts of the DSM. But what's your theory about sociopaths? Are you seriously suggesting sociopathy will be redeemed in some way?
1) Unfavorable risk/reward ratio (threat of punishment or nothing to gain)
2) They are not a sociopath
You don't mind losing half the safety net right up front?
I disagree. IMO sociopathic behavior is often harmful, just not always in a directly obvious way.
What level of risk are we willing to accept before we should be vested with the authority to make a change to reduce such risk?