I don't see how there can be a goal, in philosophy.

[delrem]

6. I was only questioning your language.

In the form
"Asperger's syndrome" -> "rudimentary sense of morals"
the term that stands out (to my sight) is "rudimentary".
"syndrome" is a totally "scientific" term, but "rudimentary" is not, esp. when coupled with some generic term for morality.

I don't understand WHY you distinguish so absolutely between "I know, intellectually, that it is wrong" and "I know, instinctively, that it is wrong". I don't think there's any pure sense where anybody knows either "intellectually" or "instinctively" between right and wrong.

You go on to say: "I should say that there are things I find morally repugnant. Murder, rape, torture...", but this contradicts your denial of "instinctive" knowledge. Is it that you don't make the connection between the repugnance that you feel toward certain acts, and the moral choices *to act this way and not that way* that you make in day to day life?

OK, finally: what I read about how you care about this subject totally contradicts your diagnosis of yourself, as having the syndrome as you describe it.

On the contrary, I'm acquainted with someone who I'd call a "socio-path". Not a "psycho", a totally nuts killer. But a socio-path whose sense of morality is entirely determined by self-centeredness, with what is good for him, pretty much regardless of damage done that can be gotten away with, legally.

eta: the socio-path mentioned relies 100% on his ability to "read people".
An ability to "read-people" has nothing to do with a sense of morality or ethics.