PETA has decided that Michael Vick (whom we have discussed previously on this blog here and here) is a psychopath and should not be allowed to play in the NFL after he gets out of jail. PETA was going to shoot an anti-dogfighting PSA with Vick and support his return to the NFL, but now believes that Vick is not "mentally capable of remorse." PETA is insisting on seeing that the "results of a brain scan and a full psychiatric evaluation" show that Vick is capable of remorse–i.e., is non-psychopathic–before supporting his return to the NFL.
Um, I don't think you can see psychopathy on a brain scan. Someone may want to alert the folks at PETA.
It also seems odd to me that they care whether Michael Vick is a psychopath playing professional football. If he does have antisocial personality disorder, it's hard to see how it's better–either for society generally or for animals that PETA might be worried about–for Vick to be broke and unable to earn a living doing the one thing he's qualified to do. It might be a wash, or it might be better if he has something to gain–and something to lose–in life by not getting caught behaving badly in the future. Maybe PETA just wants a better bargain: one PSA is no longer enough, or there's free publicity to be gained from the current stance, etc.
Even putting aside my consequentialist concerns, it's not clear why we should care if the NFL is full of psychopaths (at least, psychopaths who cannot be incarcerated or civilly committed). They need to earn livings, too, and the NFL offers the spectacle of football players playing football, not remorseful people showing remorse. We could start caring about whether people are good people much more broadly, but caring narrowly about whether football players are good people is bizarre. It's even more bizarre coming from an animal rights group, which is supposed to care about animal welfare, not the psychological or moral status of professional athletes. (Note that PETA is perfectly willing to see Vick return to the NFL, not based on any of his future actions, but on the condition that he not be a sociopath.)
On a particularly tangential tangent, can anyone tell me if there's a real difference in meaning between psychopath and sociopath? As far as I can tell, they're interchangeable.
And finally, I don't think it's that clear that Vick is a sociopath. If he had done the things he did to human beings, it would be obvious. I may be overgeneralizing here, but I think we basically measure psychopathy based on adherence to social norms and the ability to feel remorse (or empathy, or a conscience, etc.). It follows that whether one is a monster depends deeply on those social norms. If Andrew throws out his shoe, it's not be evidence of an antisocial personality disorder. If Dean throws out his child, however, it likely is (unless it's evidence of psychosis–not relevant in the Vick saga). Certain groups view animals as nearly human (PETA). Probably the majority of Americans view dogs as companion-type animals, which are entitled to a fair amount of respect and kindness–more than other animals. I think it quite plausible, though, that Vick's subculture does not–and the question is then whether he erred far enough from those norms by seriously mistreating dogs (i.e., whatever he should have understood dogs to be defined as [or where they are situated on the sliding scale between Andrew's shoe and Dean's child]).
Accidental Blogger 
6 responses to “PETA is insane. Or a physician. It’s unclear. (Joe)”
OED on psychopath:
…and sociopath:
But note the etymological note to the latter: [f. SOCIO-, after PSYCHOPATH.]
My son is a steady beacon of joy in my life. I adore him, largely because he’s adorable. But I do admit early on to addressing him as “My little serial killer.” Cute, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Michael Vick is probably just a sadistic egomaniac for whom little matters except his own swagger and glory on the football field. I was infuriated with Vick when the sad and vicious dog fighting scandal broke. But I doubt that he is a psychopath. In any case that’s none of PETA’s business.
PETA’s own role in the case of the Vick dogs is pretty telling and cold blooded. It wanted all the dogs put down. According to PETA, the animals were as “psychopathic” as their owner, hence beyond redemption. But as I pointed out in the second post you have linked to, the Best Friends shelter proved PETA wrong and saved the dogs, most of whom have now been adopted, some by families with children.
PETA showboats with all its provocative PSAs and sabotage tactics, ostensibly on behalf of animals but few people know that it also supports quick euthanasia (no adoption) of shelter animals and has campaigned against No Kill shelters. While PETA militantly opposes medical research on animals, it is strangely hostile to household pets – dogs and cats in particular. Perhaps the “sociapathic” PETA crowd has no use for animals who are loved and loving. Another dirty truth is that PETA activists are known to have killed animals they supposedly “rescued” in the back of their trucks in order to vilify the institutions they targeted for their cruelty. In other words, PETA is violent and hypocritical.
More than a third of my annual charitable contributions go to organizations that campaign and care for abused and abandoned domestic animals as well as those who are advocates for animals in the wild. Some day I will write a post listing their names and addresses. I have never given a dime to PETA and never intend to.
LikeLike
That’s funny, Dean. Why did you call him that?
Ruchira, your comment with the list added would make a good front-page post. I didn’t know much of that about PETA, and I’m sure some of our readers might be interested in a list of better animal charities.
LikeLike
Infants enjoy the advantages of infancy. On the surface they’re all coos and cuteness. Beneath reside the dark, brooding appetites of human malevolence. For instance, my Sebastian at about six to eight months was exactly like your ordinary red-faced monster CEO tyrant of the boardroom, fierce but inarticulate.
LikeLike
My first go-to place for clinical or pseudo-clinical terms is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition-Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR). The DSM-IV-TR currently considers both terms obsolete, and replaced both a long time age with Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD). See http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/antisocialpd.htm (for the criteria of APD). Not surprisingly, there are people who get all worked up over whether this was a good idea. See, e.g., http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/54831
In my experience, all three terms seem to be used mostly in juvenile halls and in other institutional settings basically as a way for clinicians to say, “I find this person really dislikable” and implicitly morally culpable. It’s usually said after some vindictive summary of what a bad person a (generally) young man is, as a way of saying, there’s nothing I can do for this person. He’s just bad. Borderline Personality Disorder seems to be used in a similar way to mean, “I find this person really annoying.” Shrinks are people, too, I guess. The only time I’ve seen these terms used in a, to my mind, valuable way was as a rule out supporting a diagnosis of high functioning Autism in a teenager, where the psychologist probed the question of whether the person understood but flaunted social norms (APD), or just didn’t get them at all (PDD). That use of the concept of “sociopathy” made sense to me from the proving Autism perspective (and we ultimately prevailed in getting the kid benefits), but I still don’t get its use to the guys with the APD label.
The NFL might decide they don’t Vick to play because of his criminal activities. But under Title I of the ADA, it would be illegal for the NFL to exclude Vick solely on the basis of a diagnosis of APD, if he had one. The question would be whether the limitations caused by his condition kept him from performing the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation. Doesn’t seem like there’s much question of that. No one ever said empathy was an essential function of playing football. http://www.uwsa.edu/gc-off/deskbook/ada1.htm The NFL might also qualify as a public accommodation under Title III. Similar analysis. The main case there would be PGA Tour v. Martin. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-24.ZS.html
If he was a danger to self or others or gravely disabled, with variations of language by state, the state could commit him, and he would not be playing.
This is all just the much more legalistic way of saying almost exactly what Joe said.
I’m with Ruchira on PETA, but did not know so much about their more sinister political theater. That would definitely make for a good post.
LikeLike
The PETA political theater would definitely make for a big box of popcorn, as I suspect that militant supporters might descend upon A.B. in droves to argue the merits of Ruchira’s contentions.
LikeLike