I have no problem with building solidarity among the underprivileged, the problem is when (or if) it descends into a kind of provincialism... all in all though a totally worthy and fine goal.

I agree with what you're saying about the stairs. The ability to use the stairs is a privilege. The ability to walk unimpeded is also a privilege. Even if stairs were no longer a thing, privilege still exists for those who can walk normally in a world where walking is still important. Even if the entire world were a flat, even surface those who can walk comfortably certainly still have privilege. Do you disagree?

Moral relativism in my view, is just saying, hey, morality is changing according to a variety of factors and this is observable. — Judaka

Yes, morality has changed. What you're describing here is descriptive moral relativism (just basically a factual description of the world, yes, moral norms have changed and continue to change). When philosophers argue against moral relativism they're arguing against prescriptive moral relativism: The view that morality on a fundamental level is always to be viewed relative to something (usually to some time or place) and that other standards cannot be privileged over that.

I don't know if there are any implications to it. It's still a useful thought experiment to try to put yourself in someone else's shoes and consider that you're only one consciousness out of many which has been born into a certain set of circumstances and faced with a certain set of experiences which mold the individual. If there are any philosophical implications that you can come up with from your thought than let me know.

I don't even know what we're talking about anymore because you before said you didn't want to call just any desirable attribute a privilege but now you are calling the lack of an undesirable attribute a privilege and so I assume anything goes now. — Judaka

Any desirable attribute is not a privilege, for instance take a professional football player. The hard work & sacrifice he's put into it isn't privilege... what's privilege is the genetics behind that or that his parents could afford football camp. Privilege is about things you don't control. If it's positive and outside of your control, yes, it could be considered a privilege. Even the absence of a negative could be considered a privilege - that's why I'm saying the modern discourse about privilege - if we're being honest with it - should be expanded tremendously. That is - if we want to work within this framework.

I think Asif is right in saying that you are in a sense by asking intelligent people to view their intelligence as an unearned advantage, you are asking for things like guilt and shame. — Judaka

I don't mean for it to come across that way just like I'm not asking people who are not in chronic pain to feel guilty about that. I consider it a privilege that I'm not in chronic pain, but again it would seem ridiculous to suggest that people without chronic pain should feel guilty about not having it. I don't personally feel guilty for not having a billion different disorders. It would be like guilty overload.

And if someone did receive a huge advantage and now they're proud of a good placing, what a prick. Of course, you did well, you have all these unearned advantages. — Judaka

Someone is still praiseworthy for turning, say, a $1 million into $5 million - it's an excellent job, but I think we'd both agree this is different from someone reaching $5 million who started out with $10. I'm not here to belittle those who were born into privilege and stayed in privilege, but someone who overcame a legitimate obstacle to achieve is super praiseworthy. There's something special about that (I deal a lot in the disability community, by the way so that's my frame of reference.)

Dating, for example, I am sympathetic here because it is inherently competitive and being attractive is an advantage, period. Your characterisation seems apt here, you are not creating competition, it already existed. — Judaka

Yep, generally speaking attractiveness is an advantage although there may be cases where it isn't. Similarly, being born into wealth or having intelligence (intelligence is largely genetic, by the way) is generally an advantage, although not always. You won't be capable of holding anything beyond an entry level position with an IQ of less than 80. They won't even let you into the military.

Let me briefly touch on your suggestion of "lucky", this is not something I would give you grief over but you have to see how different this is compared to "unearned advantage". There is no competition, there is no hierarchy, there is only gratitude, it is a very positive perspective and I can't really find fault in it. — Judaka

You can have gratitude, I have no problem with that. I can accept the gratitude line of thought. Personally, I just find the concept of privilege more interesting to explore because it has more of a social element to it. You can reject the framing of privilege all you want, but that's basically how discourse is going around today so.... if you're going to engage with a left-winger it's gonna be difficult if you just reject their concepts entirely, but each to his own.

It's like you think privilege is just this totally neutral, meaningless word. — Judaka

Then call it something else, I don't care. The gist is that it's an unearned advantage - it's something you don't need to worry about. Would it be okay with you if we didn't call it privilege and just called it something beneficial that you didn't earn through hard work? Maybe call it a perk? Unearned advantage? Maybe even just "lucky." Like "I'm lucky that I don't...."

EDIT: It's definitely not about making you feel guilty either. For instance, if you don't have chronic pain you have a "privilege" or a "perk" or whatever you want to call it - but nobody is saying that people without chronic pain should feel guilty for not having it - that's ridiculous. Nor is the implication that people without chronic pain should drink bleach and damage their organs in order to have it and be "equal."

It doesn't seem like it is making much of a difference for you, whether you call it a privilege or something else. I feel attractiveness is really in a league of its own though, it's easy to paint a really bleak picture there though for some it's a bit controversial. — Judaka

Yeah, call it whatever. If you're not comfortable calling it privilege then I don't really care.

Attraction does matter, I agree.... I don't know if I would say that it's in a league of its own though. By "attraction" I'm referring more to the physical part of it. Part of the reason why so many people understand the "privilege" (or whatever you want to call it) of being attractive is that it's basically universal - everyone falls somewhere on the attraction scale. If you want to talk about attraction I'm happy to hear your thoughts on it.

There's a billion things we don't think about though, and that's a privilege. For instance, I started watching a streamer with tourettes syndrome lately and it's allowed me to familiarize myself a little more with that reality. Tourettes is a neurological condition and there's no real reason my brain couldn't have been like that and I can imagine it would have been extremely difficult and scary to not control what comes out of your mouth. Thankfully, I don't have to worry about that. That's privilege.

But if you are referring to people who are just normally less intelligent then how is that unjust for them? That is what they are. Doesnt mean low intelligence means oppressed or disadvantaged. — Asif

Intellectually disabled people can't hold the vast majority of jobs. I know someone who's intellectually disabled (IQ of around 65) and the vast majority of jobs are beyond his capability. The military won't even accept people with an IQ under 80 to use as cannon fodder. I'm not talking about people who are a little slower than average.

It doesn't really matter what I consider intellectually disabled and I don't see what you're getting at here by asking me this. Like would it really matter if I said an IQ of under 80? 70? 65?

I would rather just appreciate different peoples talents rather than just talk about difference being inequality in some unjust unfair way. — Asif

I would rather appreciate people's talents too, Asif. I'd rather sit down and have a beer with someone who's very talented in some field and just enjoy a chat with them. We can talk about whatever, it doesn't matter, all I am saying here is that privilege exists.

For instance, I play chess. I've been playing chess since I was around 5 and I'm a fairly competitive player. However, regardless of how much I or a billion other people were to practice, we will simply never be as good as people whose minds work in extraordinary ways which allow them visualize and assess positions 5 or 10 moves down the line. Again, I don't spend all my time going around and complaining about that, I just want to say that it's there. Similarly, there are people who are intellectually disabled and there's nothing they did to deserve that it's just life.

Alright, well, I've made my case. I understand it might be psychologically healthier for someone to ignore the idea of privilege and the idea can certainly be used in toxic ways as we both realize, but I think on a fundamental level reality needs to be acknowledged. It's not about politics - everyone immediately realizes the privilege of a tall, good-looking man versus a guy who's like 5'4 even if he's decent looking. IMO, simply describing that as a "difference" doesn't quite do it justice given the difference in treatment between these two men.

These differences aren't always physical either - being a native English speaker is definitely a privilege in today's work environment.

In any case that's just how I see things - I know I could become bitter if I were to focus on the areas where I'm not privileged and envy those with privilege - but I have better things to do. I accept reality as best I can and try to work on myself while acknowledging the world is just patently unfair. We pursue our best selves and our goals even in the face of this reality. It wouldn't even matter if we were in the most idyllic version of a socialist utopia - difference is implicit in humanity, and from that - inequality and unfairness.

I have told you, this is not an issue about what the truth is, it's an issue of framing and interpretation. — Judaka

Do you have an alternative framing that you'd like to present?

How we look at attractiveness and intelligence is changed when we describe it or even refer to it as an "unearned advantage" — Judaka

I'm not saying that beauty or intelligence is entirely privilege, but there's a part of it that is.

Privilege is not a pursuit of the truth, privilege is not a truth, it is a framing and interpretation issue. Privilege does not exist in the real world, it is something we create as a characterisation of things that exist in the real world. It is a category, a group of physical attributes or social circumstances that constitute some kind of special right or benefit. — Judaka

All I mean by privilege is something that is an unearned advantage in some regard. The central idea behind it is that it's unearned - some have it, some don't.

We can analyse the effects of intelligence and attractiveness, we do, in fact, but they're separate things, nothing is really gained by throwing them into a "privileges" category. — Judaka

All privilege is about is recognizing unearned advantages. A beautiful model likely put in a ton of work to become a model - dieting, fasting, working out, surgeries, etc. etc. but the fact of the matter is none of this would have really mattered if she had been born with vastly different genetics or she had a terrible skin condition or was raised poor and couldn't get proper nutrition which had long lasting impacts. Where the model is now (with her incredible beauty) may have been years of hard work, but it seems dishonest to me to completely remove luck from the equation. I'm not saying everything is a privilege, I'm just asking you to acknowledge the things behind success or better treatment which are outside of our control.

People aren't just different - they're different in ways that clearly beneficial to some group and not beneficial to another. That's the point behind privilege. The context often matters, though.

Intelligence and beauty are the result of both hard work but also nature favoring you in some way. Money doesn't hurt either.

I am sorry to rebuke you when it seems you are trying to agree with me but how can you say that categorising privileges is a pursuit of the truth? — Judaka

It's fine, I'm not demanding that you agree with me. I hope I've made my stance a little clearer with this post. If you don't like the word "privilege" you can just use "unearned advantage."

What is the benefit in sorting people into privileged and unprivileged categories? I only see spite, jealousy, discrimination, self-esteem issues, self-confidence issues and the like. — Judaka

I understand how the thinking can be toxic - we shouldn't be going around thinking about how someone is privileged and another person is a victim... again, since we're both more on the right we can cut out the leftist bashing.... What I'm interested in here is truth.

It's about characterising these characteristics, are they blessings, privileges, are they just part of who you are and what are the implications for someone who has these characteristics within each framing? Do people have a responsibility due to their wealth? That's part of what is being discussed here. — Judaka

This is a question that is worth being discussed. Personally, I don't think someone having privilege entails that they need to share it or that they're guilty in some way. We're probably on the same page with this.

If someone wants to be proud of their intelligence or attractiveness, let them be, what's the point in insisting that it's a special privilege of theirs? It is just part of who they are anyway, it does in fact belong to them and there's nothing malicious about it.

Pride is a completely separate issue and I don't want to get into a different topic. It isn't even about insisting - verbally or through some other medium - that the person in question has a special privilege. It's simply about acknowledgment if we want to stay faithful that we're pursuing truth here (this is a philosophy forum.) I think, strictly speaking, intelligent and beautiful people do have a privilege in those regards. Average looking and people with average intelligence also have privilege, but not as much as the elites. Even if you took a special ed class you could still discuss who has privilege within that context - it's all relative.

We don't need to draw implications from this, imo. If we put on our "anti privilege" hats and start attacking all forms of privilege we might as well just be living in Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" universe.

I accept that systemic racism exists but that doesn't mean I accept the concept of white privilege - because it's a terrible, insidious framing. The characterisation is not justified simply because part of the argument has unquestionable facts. This really extends to the entire conceptualisation of privilege except in perhaps the most extreme of cases such as children of the uber-rich. — Judaka

I don't spend a lot of time in leftist circles... whatever they do is up to them. I'm not interested in defending whatever Banno is arguing or whatever.... the way that I've framed the idea of privilege makes sense to me and it's certainly interesting to explore the idea further and hopefully we can avoid overly toxic framings of the issue. Sure, it's often psychologically burdensome to look at the ways you're unprivileged, but I find it fascinating to listen to other people talk about the ways their identities intersect because it allows us a window into another world.

EDIT: One more thought for the road - the ability to dispassionately approach a topic is likely a privilege. If someone is, say, a rape survivor they're probably not going to approach the subject of sexual assault from however a textbook or studies convey the info.... the subject is going to be invariably colored through their own experiences and emotional processing of that. In that sense, the study of philosophy - i.e. a dispassionate and objectively rational approach to the world or truth - is likely a privilege on certain topics. If your own experience with a subject is so personal and therefore emotional you're not really doing philosophy in the traditional sense, you're more like writing a memoir.

There is no great revelation to be had by knowing the conceptualisation of privilege in so far as people are born with advantages over others.

Yes, and there's also the social part to it - how these biological traits or other unearned traits are treated in society.

Privilege does not do this and has absolutely no interest in privileges that do not fit into leftist identity politics theory. — Judaka

I get it - you don't need to argue against leftwing formulations of identity politics or privilege
with me because I'm not on the left.

It is absolutely asking you to see individuals by the groups they belong to and in this case that is by their race, sexual orientation and gender. — Judaka

I agree - but what if we expanded this list? That's why I was saying earlier that the idea of privilege isn't in and of itself a leftist fantasy, and interestingly a trait can be a privilege in one circumstance and not in another. Identifying people purely through the lenses of race, sex, and sexuality is obviously stupid and I think we both agree so we can drop this point.

I actually did go to a presentation on intersectionalism last year and to their credit the speakers did extend beyond race, sex, and sexuality. Often class is brought in (always interesting to hear about, because with class often comes culture) and the speakers did touch on physical traits and the expectations that come along with those. It was genuinely interesting to hear how these identities intersected. Whether we like it or not, we often categorize those around us by these superficial traits and we refine this conception as we get to know that person more.

However, privilege is a warped framing with no nuance or depth, it characterises history through the oppression of groups over other groups. It is not simply saying "racism, hatred of homosexuality and sexism are wrong".

Obviously this is an unhealthy framing of things but if the idea of privilege is understood as an unearned advantage or a perk makes sense then we should probably address it and not cover our eyes and call it liberal bullsh*t.

I think there's some interesting conversation to be had here when we expand the idea of privilege. I also think while someone having X privilege is an overall benefit, there may very well be downsides or extra baggage associated with it.

What I would like to hear is a defence of your framing and interpretation, that is "privilege" because that's actually what needs to be defended. — Judaka

I'm not responding to defend Banno and I'm not too familiar with how the concept of privilege is used in left wing circles, but it seems to me that the idea in and of itself isn't too bad. There's never been a doubt to me that people are privileged or unprivileged in various ways and I'd say that virtually everyone is privileged in some ways and unprivileged in others.

The way I see it, virtually everybody is privileged in some ways and un-privileged in others. Many feminists today pride themselves on being "intersectional" which really just means they consider a number of factors that extend well outside of race - class, gender, disability, and we can even go further with that - looks, health, hair, etc.

I definitely consider myself privileged in some ways and unprivileged in others. Thankfully I don't have any serious health issues and I don't live everyday in chronic pain (I know people who do.) This is absolutely a privilege; some people are just born with terrible ailments which cause them pain throughout their lives.

I have no problem admitting privilege in certain regards and non-privilege in others. Someone calling me "privileged" as an insult always rings hollow. You can call them privileged right back even if they're black and poor and female.

Stairs provide a simple instance of how the built environment systematically privileges certain body-types. — Banno

True.

It's not something the privileged would even notice were it not pointed out to them. — Banno

Also true.

That's how privilege works. — Banno

Yes, having the ability to walk is absolutely a privilege. A lot of people don't notice it.

The thing about disability is that it's not only about people with mobility issues... it involves everything from mental disabilities to speech disabilities to emotional ones... all I'm asking for you is to keep flushing out your logic. Your basic logic seems to be "Well, if X (with X being something in society) is easier for those who don't suffer from some disability (let's call that disability Y) then it's ableist." Just formulate your basic logic, please.

By the way, upwards ramps also favor certain body types. Actually, so do normal flat surfaces.

Stairs present an obstacle to a certain group of disabled people making them ableist, so is any man-made thing or human convention or practice that presents an obstacle to a certain group of disabled people also ableist?

I like how you didn't address the rest of my questions because it would have led you to conclude that that basically everything on the planet is ableist.

You might be; talking about employment; that you can ignore issues apart from those you list is your privilege. You get to pretend that the stairs are not the issue. — Banno

You said "Systematic discrimination against people with a disability takes the form of stairs." This is just wrong because it totally neglects the bigger picture which is the human element to it - the actual stigma held by people around disability. For example, the employer's impression of what people with disabilities are capable of or the potential costs involved to employing them.

For whatever reason you're also just defining "people with disabilities" to people who have trouble with mobility, also.

Stairs are not systemically ableist.

Are drive thrus systemically ableist for people who stutter or have difficulty speaking? How about just any speaking situation whatsoever? Are hills systemically ableist? Should the entire world just be thrown to the flames?

I absolutely acknowledge disabled people suffer. — GTTRPNK

It's not just about suffering, it's likely systemic discrimination as is the case with the ugly.

is not analogous with a system intentionally built to exclude the success of a certain type of people, ie: people of color, women and LGBTQ, not to mention the ones who intersect (black, gay trans women.) — GTTRPNK

When I hear "the system intentionally built..." I want to ask who made this system? Who can I point my finger at and condemn? What exactly is being talked about here? Capitalism? The legal system? War on Drugs? Policing in general? These are all different things, not one cohesive system. Please specify.

So you wish to perpetrate the myth that everyone suffers some form of oppression, and when called on that obvious fallacy you fall back on the pretence that all we need to do is play nice. — Banno

I'm saying that the vast majority - maybe all, I don't know - have at least one attribute which qualifies as "unprivileged." I'm not falling back on anything; I fully own this premise and I'll stand by it.

Systematic discrimination against people with a disability takes the form of stairs. Removing that discrimination requires that you remove the stairs.

Come on, you can do better. We're mostly talking about employment discrimination here - basically, employers not hiring disabled or ugly people because they see them as too big a burden or unfit for the position due to their disability. Of course the stairs are an obstacle and accommodations need to be made, but when we're tlaking about discrimination we're talking about discrimination mostly in the workplace involving employment and promotions, but also fair general treatment.

Let's do neither, sound good?



That wasn't my point, but in any case do you think the disabled don't suffer systemic discrimination? Honestly, I think ugly people suffer a great deal of discrimination - is it systemic? Who knows, but it surely happens.

Just something I find a little funny:

"Researchers Gurven and Kaplan have estimated that around 57% of hunter-gatherers reach the age of 15. Of those that reach 15 years of age, 64% continue to live to or past the age of 45. This places the life expectancy between 21 and 37 years."

So OP is probably around 18, so it's basically a coin toss as to whether he'd actually be alive in a hunter-gatherer society and be able to physically express his support of this type of society. I don't mean to start an argument with OP but this is just a point I found kind of funny.

As for the cis white male part, these are the people who have been "the powers that be" for a long time in American history, — GTTRPNK

Sure, and we can keep adding qualifiers here: Were these cis white men disabled? Were they trauma victims? Were they ugly? Did they come from single parent households?

There's bound to be at least one thing about everyone that qualifies as "oppressed" the question is whether you take that oppression and make it a part of your identity.

Am I wrong? Can anyone provide an example of a moral precept held by any community past or present who did not come to that position on the belief that it served human flourishing? — Thomas Quine

I think an interesting question to ask ourselves here is whether this flourishing is more aimed towards the community (or mankind as a whole) or with the individual?

If we're concerned chiefly with the flourishing of mankind in general we need to ask ourselves what's stopping us from picking up random, socially isolated homeless people off the streets and whisking them away in trucks to perform medical experiments on them, which if successful could save countless lives.

If we're more concerned with individual flourishing then I think we should largely be leaving individuals to decide that for themselves. It's still a tricky concept though: Someone with a personality disorder could perceive themselves as flourishing yet be insufferable to others around them. It's a good question whether "flourishing" should be defined in a more objective or subjective sense.

I think we were thinking about cooperation in different senses. Neither of us is wrong here - the word can be used in a few different ways. Usually when I think about cooperation it's, for instance, a group of people working towards a common end, mutually beneficial, through their own free volition. It's not about following rules that you never explicitly agreed to or being forced to do something. We see this all the time in a free market where people's interests and skills can line up in ways that benefit both parties.

I understand where you're coming from though. People will often say "I expect your cooperation" when they really mean "Please do as I say." There can even be a real threat behind it if you don't yield. In this sense of the word, it can certainly be stifling and I agree with you 100%. I like to distinguish between cooperation and coercion.

But how much is this a modern cultural mythology - the image of the striving hero battling against fickle fate? You don't have to go far to see counter-stories where the tragedy is to be cast out of the collective bosom.

Just to clarify, for "tragedy" I meant it more in the literary sense. I don't consider this modern - you have Shakespearian tragedies and there's a long literary tradition of good, well meaning characters who get brought down through something unfortunate.

I think if I were to accept this notion - that the best always prevails - I'd probably find myself believing in some sort of version of Social Darwinism like the one you mentioned earlier in Victorian England.

I don't mean to ignore the first part of your response - it's just we're mostly in agreement.

But is that a result of experiencing the US system which leans too far in that direction? Or a reflection of how neoliberalism as a philosophy has tried to take the whole globalised financial system in that direction? — apokrisis

I don't think my ambivalence towards competition comes from either of these. For the record, I'm fine with local sports leagues and chess tournaments... sure emotions can fly but all in all these are relatively low stakes competitions.

Competition pervades society though - and this isn't just about American capitalism. Soviet school children still sought to achieve the highest marks and go to the best universities. Native Americans in pre-agrarian societies still sought to become chief and attain a healthy social status (often through war.) Whether it's social status or business/wealth or romance competition is pervasive in human affairs and the losers suffer real, serious consequences. Life is often a high stakes competition.

The losers don't necessarily deserve it, either. There's an element of randomness to it. I understand the systemic benefits and the fact that competition can make men stronger and more skillful in areas, but I can't ignore the costs either. I think there's an element of tragedy to it that cooperation doesn't quite have.

So the mistake is to try to build a theory around just one side of the dichotomy. The goal would be to design a system which maximises the expression of both - both the cooperation and the competition. — apokrisis

This is an interesting way of putting it. I think I agree. I think cooperation often comes down to rational self-interest, and actors within a free market can make use of this very nicely. If you can produce something well and I can move and sell that product well then we can cooperate. Cooperation is just generally a good thing, I just wonder if the notion of cooperation is inherently limited to an in-group.

Even as someone who considers himself a free market capitalism, I still regard competition with a little hesitation. Competition can get out of hand quickly, and it's often just an unfortunate reality thrown upon humanity by nature (for instance, with dating/marriage/social status) or over scarce resources, especially in the past where there often wasn't enough to go around. In business competition can turn bloody or leave some business owners broke, but it's ultimately better for the consumer to have options and not be at the mercy of one supply chain. I wouldn't call it a "necessary evil" but it is something to be careful of.

Bankruptcy laws and procedures are a result of a long historical learning, just as is limited liability.

In Antiquity there wasn't limited liability, hence if you couldn't pay up to your financiers, they literally owned you. Hence the risk of possible slavery didn't incite people to invest. This of course was a problem in a time when shipping was a hazardous enterprise, so it's no wonder that the commenda, a passive partner, who's risk was limited emerged in 11th century Italy. — ssu

I'd be interested in learning more about bankruptcy laws.

With Benkei, I was more responding to his idea that the employee ought to have more of share in the profit of their business. I was just saying this is all fine and good until the company finds itself in the red and instead of profit to be shared it's debt to be carried.

When you get fired your compensation stops. Sure, that sucks but you're not actually in the hole for anything. An example of employees having a direct stake in the company would be stock options: When times are good portfolios grow, but when times are bad that portfolio doesn't just pause - it hemorrhages money.

And if the company posts losses should the workers forfeit their pay?

As a child, pain is objectively bad. — Outlander

When I was a kid I remember falling on my bike a few times - probably from going too fast - and scraping my knee. Pain can help someone learn their limitations, and not just for children. By and large though these things - suffering, starvation, abuse - definitely seem bad. But there are cases where due to someone going through these things they came out a better, more mature person.

The philosopher is interested in being right, while the entrepreneur is interested in what works. The philosopher doesn't really face consequences for being wrong, while the entrepreneur could be financially ruined by a misstep or a poor investment. Philosophers theorize and system-build - historically speaking, often from the top down while the entrepreneur needs to be firmly routed in the concrete realities of the economy/market first and foremost. The philosopher has endless time to contemplate while the entrepreneur must make decisions and take risks otherwise there could be great costs.

By "morality" do you mean just any code of morals or... a good code of morals? Regardless, we definitely have physiological drives that inform moral behavior whether it's through an innate disgust of something or a warm feeling inside.

There's a multitude of philosophical beliefs about morality. Morality is just the topic. The existence of objective morality is a philosophical position that would be in opposition to moral nihilism.

We can talk about morality in different ways - one of which is as a philosophical concept. There's a ton of different ways to approach the topic.

No, psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by lack of empathy and remorse as well as strong egoism. I certainly don't call people who disagree with normal philosophical stances psychopaths.

No, if people were purely going by the inner logic then there would not be the same observable outcomes. People in real life often just aren't logical. The fundamental logic, not just of Christianity but of Judaism and I think Islam is that no matter where you are or in what kind of situation you're in... you're ultimately accountable for your actions. You will have to answer for them.

When it comes to nihilism there's not much of a fundamental logic because the nihilist rejects truth and value. However, he contradicts this because life demands that he invent his own. The intellectually honest nihilist is constantly in tension because he still values things and often has strong attachments while at the same time he rejects the idea of objective value.

In regard to the OP, I would want to hear the context of the statement. Wasn't he talking in regard to the US's approach to international affairs (i.e. in regard to how we deal with other countries?) International affairs is weird - it's about priorities rather than absolute principles. It's like with Russia: Do we want them to protect their LGBT community? Of course - but is it prudent to use complaint as the guiding principle of our foreign policy or do we have bigger fish to fry? How effective would we even be in addressing this issue directly or are there other more covert ways to approach it? I feel what Pompeo is signaling here is a more constricted, limited approach to US foreign policy. I wouldn't take Pompeo's statements on this matter to representative of a comprehensive personal political philosophy.