"It's just my opinion"

[Zamn]

Because while the taste is pretty much same to everyone, the reaction to it inside brain can be different for everyone. It's actually quite simple neuro-science when you think about it; Each brain can react slightly differently to the same stimulus. We simply lump the reactions to either like or not-like.

I.e. it's a matter of fact that you can't resolve whether carrot is always tasty or not, because "taste" is simply stimulation that each brain reacts to in its own way.

This is a good argument in favour of subjectivity, that some things simply boil down to experiences that aren't the same for everyone. But, in a sense, is someone else's brain reacting differently to the flavour of carrots any different to their brain reacting differently to, say, an ethical problem? If you chalk everything down to individual experience you're getting back into the problem of it being impossible to discuss anything because different individual experiences explain your differences in position rather than the positions having any validity of their own.

 

[RootbeerJello]

I agree to an extent. The problems as far as I can see are:

1. People who present their opinion as cold hard fact (This game is the best because I say it is)
2. People who present opinions on subjects that can be proven or disproven by fact ("I think X caused Y", when all evidence suggests that Y caused X).
3. When it comes to people liking things, opinions are pretty much equal. You can't really tell someone they're wrong for liking something, and I'd damned sure be pissed if someone said that to me.

At the end of the day, your entire post is opinion. Some will agree, some won't. All you can do is stand by it and try, hopefully without resorting to flaming, to put your argument across.

I think to some extent you have to consider your own opinions as fact, if you genuinely believe them then you think they are actual truths, while also being aware of your own fallablity and not being too chauvanistic about it.

Ultimately saying "you're wrong" and "I disagree with you" are the same thing, the latter is only preferable because it's more respectful. I would say this can be applied even to things normally considered totally subjective like musical taste. "I don't like jazz" and "jazz is bad" boil down to the same sentiment. I'm not saying that you should go around telling other people that their taste in music is wrong because that would be enormously rude, but we all implicitly say that by saying things like "I don't like jazz".

I disagree with you. Now, I just said that post is wrong in my eyes but I'm sure that some people found that post to be completely correct. I'm not saying it's factually incorrect, I'm saying it isn't my belief but it damn well should be yours if you believe in it.

 

[Lexodus]

Alright now I just think your an idiot.

*SUPER FACEPALM OF ULTIMATE JUSTICE*

Irony, oh how entertaining it is.

Teeheehee! I'm right with you there. In fact, I'll help you with that facepalm, because doing it yourself would never be strong enough to convey the right amount of disgust.

You guys clearly didn't get what I was saying. I said he was an idiot becuase he doens't understand the defenitions of the words he's tossing around. Opinion is not a synonym for belief, it's a very similar word, but not a synonym. Somebody mentioned that I can't grasp analogies, they were wrong, I understand that it was an analogy, it was just a very poor one because it wasn't an opinion, like I said. It's not like I called him an idiot because I think he believes the world is flat.

Sigh. [http://www.wikihow.com/Use-You%27re-and-Your] I didn't think that needed to be explained.

Ah, I'm sorry, I assumed you weren't talking about my lack of apostraphe. In any case, implying that I'm an idiot because there are minor grammatical errors in my posts is hardly...productive.

Firstly, it's 'apostrophe'. Secondly... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Want_of_a_Nail_(proverb)]

Thanks for the correction. As for the second part, I'm not dissputing the intelligence of old proverbs... but it's a worthless reference in this case. My lack of apostrophe had no more consequences than a few quoted posts and a misunderstanding on my part. While a kingdom may have fallen for the want of a horseshoe nail, this thread will not be derailed for the lack of an apostrophe.

Eh. Try going without good grammar though, and some sentences become very ambiguous, which can potentially leave you in hot water.
Take this age-old example:

"A woman without her man is nothing."
OR:
"A woman; without her, man is nothing."

Whilst the first will get you slapped by feminists (come to think of it, actually, most women would slap you), the second is flattering to the same demographic.

Another (this time, a positive one) example of ambiguity is one of my favourite jokes in the world, and if anyone gets the reference, kudos to you.

"Speaking of names, I know a man with a wooden leg named Smith."
"Really? What's the name of his other leg?"

 

[Zamn]

I'm not arguing there are two types of opinion.
I'm arguing that there are two definitions of the word "opinion", which there are:

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

2 is where the statement "It's just my opinion." is justified.
But with 1, it is not.

Different types of opinion, different definition of the word opinion, that's just semantics. You still haven't produced a clear distinction between the two things because not everything falls neatly into the two categories that you've presented. There is no such thing as absolute certainty, only degrees of certainty, at what point on the spectrum of certainty do you cross from definition 1 to defintion 2?

o⋅pin⋅ion  /əˈpɪnyən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-pin-yuhn]

?noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.

"Blue is a pretty color" Is an opinion I have that cannot be proven/disproven.

An opinion by it's very definition (^^^^^) cannot be proven/disproven.

You say opinions can be proven wrong? Give me an example of an opinion that can be proven wrong and I'll show you someting that isn't really an opinion.

Dictionaries are a bad place to look for definitions, I don't think they should ever be used in debate. Firstly, no dictionary is entirely authorative, there are many different dictionaries and they don't all agree. A dictionary defintion of a word is still potentially open to argument. Following from that, dictionaries define words, not concepts, my use of the word 'opinion' is not necessarily the same as the authors of that particular dictionary.

 

[Sightless Wisdom]

Alright now I just think your an idiot.

*SUPER FACEPALM OF ULTIMATE JUSTICE*

Irony, oh how entertaining it is.

Teeheehee! I'm right with you there. In fact, I'll help you with that facepalm, because doing it yourself would never be strong enough to convey the right amount of disgust.

You guys clearly didn't get what I was saying. I said he was an idiot becuase he doens't understand the defenitions of the words he's tossing around. Opinion is not a synonym for belief, it's a very similar word, but not a synonym. Somebody mentioned that I can't grasp analogies, they were wrong, I understand that it was an analogy, it was just a very poor one because it wasn't an opinion, like I said. It's not like I called him an idiot because I think he believes the world is flat.

Sigh. [http://www.wikihow.com/Use-You%27re-and-Your] I didn't think that needed to be explained.

Ah, I'm sorry, I assumed you weren't talking about my lack of apostraphe. In any case, implying that I'm an idiot because there are minor grammatical errors in my posts is hardly...productive.

Firstly, it's 'apostrophe'. Secondly... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Want_of_a_Nail_(proverb)]

Thanks for the correction. As for the second part, I'm not dissputing the intelligence of old proverbs... but it's a worthless reference in this case. My lack of apostrophe had no more consequences than a few quoted posts and a misunderstanding on my part. While a kingdom may have fallen for the want of a horseshoe nail, this thread will not be derailed for the lack of an apostrophe.

Eh. Try going without good grammar though, and some sentences become very ambiguous, which can potentially leave you in hot water.
Take this age-old example:

"A woman without her man is nothing."
OR:
"A woman; without her, man is nothing."

Whilst the first will get you slapped by feminists (come to think of it, actually, most women would slap you), the second is flattering to the same demographic.

Another (this time, a positive one) example of ambiguity is one of my favourite jokes in the world, and if anyone gets the reference, kudos to you.

"Speaking of names, I know a man with a wooden leg named Smith."
"Really? What's the name of his other leg?"

Aye, I'm certainly not advocating a lack of grammar, I quite often cuss out members of these forums for their blatent lack of grammar. So, I suppose what I'm getting at is: I agree with most of what you said, and with that said, we shouldn't derail this thread any further.

 

[JoshasorousRex]

Another phrase that I personally don't like

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Well then how would all those innovations and new better versions of what you have come into this world? Such as food. We wouldn't have our delicious stakes, bacon, pies and such if people didn't make them (or attempt) to make them better. Or video games. Do you really want to be stuck staring at Pong graphics?

Yay off topicness!

OT: I don't know how to disagree... You seem to be right :/

 

[Lexodus]

TL;DR but that's just my opinion.

It's also disrespectful.

Get over it.

People use "it's just my opinion" so that dumb fucks don't reply back saying "yeah but that's just your opinion".

That's your opinion. My opinion is that they use 'It's just my opinion" to weasel out of an argument once they've started to lose, or realise their mistake but don't want to admit it as that would mean admitting that somebody else knew more about something than they did.

And it's just my opinion that you're blatantly doing nothing more than trying to start an argument now to satisfy your ego.

"[Thou] doth protest too much, methinks."
See that? I used Hamlet in an argument. I get serious props for that.

 

[Axeli]

Opinions of that sort can be better than each other and the only way everyone is entitled to that sort of opinion is by law, not by philosophical justice.

Besides the only opinions that can't right or wrong are ones like "I like blue more than red", "I think carrots taste awful". Basically, only thing subjective is what causes you enjoyment or displeasure.

Those aren't opinions.
"Blue is better than red." and "Carrots taste awful." are opinions.
"I like blue more than red" and "I think carrots taste awful" are true/false statements about your own opinions.

Hmm... Splitting hairs with about some completely irrelevant... must have strong opinions about something else I said...

However, opinions like "homosexuality is wrong" can totally be wrong... It's actually one of the most annoying things about the world that people think ethics are subjective (while of course at the same time secretely thinking they are the only one right). Of course that's not true.

The majority of philosophers of meta-ethics consider morality to be subjective.
I'd like to see your proof that they are "of course" wrong.[/quote]
Ahh, there we go.
Morals, subjective, absolutely. Ethics, perhaps. Meta-ethics, not so much.

There's one basic thing about human experience; We all find things either pleasant or unpleasant (or neutral, or bit of both). It's the simplest way to define good and evil. This is of course using the terms pleasure and pain in their wide definition, not just the hedonistic manner.
This of course doesn't rule out egoism over altruism, but a mentally healthy person should find displeasure in pain of others and perhaps some higher form of satisfaction in considering other people equal.
But anyway, it always comes down to "does this cause notable amount of displeasure" when determining if an act is wrong. And frankly, I seriously doubt homosexuality caused anyone as much distress as it caused to gay people to drown them in swamps.

 

[Sightless Wisdom]

I'm not arguing there are two types of opinion.
I'm arguing that there are two definitions of the word "opinion", which there are:

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

2 is where the statement "It's just my opinion." is justified.
But with 1, it is not.

Different types of opinion, different definition of the word opinion, that's just semantics. You still haven't produced a clear distinction between the two things because not everything falls neatly into the two categories that you've presented. There is no such thing as absolute certainty, only degrees of certainty, at what point on the spectrum of certainty do you cross from definition 1 to defintion 2?

o⋅pin⋅ion  /əˈpɪnyən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-pin-yuhn]

?noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.

"Blue is a pretty color" Is an opinion I have that cannot be proven/disproven.

An opinion by it's very definition (^^^^^) cannot be proven/disproven.

You say opinions can be proven wrong? Give me an example of an opinion that can be proven wrong and I'll show you someting that isn't really an opinion.

Dictionaries are a bad place to look for definitions, I don't think they should ever be used in debate. Firstly, no dictionary is entirely authorative, there are many different dictionaries and they don't all agree. A dictionary defintion of a word is still potentially open to argument. Following from that, dictionaries define words, not concepts, my use of the word 'opinion' is not necessarily the same as the authors of that particular
dictionary.

So, with this, you are essentially agreeing that even something such as a dictionary is subjective. Or at least that's what I'm getting out of it. Perhaps I'm not understanding your meaning, I could also assume that you are trying to argue that opinions,as a concept, can be wrong. I suppose this is fair, but if this is what your getting at, why should your word be believed any more than somone's who says opinions can not be wrong or right? The fact that we still have to consider this should demonstrate why this debate/discussion, can never really end with an absoloute truth. It is, just like the definition of a word, subjective to the opinions of all those who take part.

 

[Bigeyez]

Dictionaries are a bad place to look for definitions, I don't think they should ever be used in debate. Firstly, no dictionary is entirely authorative, there are many different dictionaries and they don't all agree. A dictionary defintion of a word is still potentially open to argument. Following from that, dictionaries define words, not concepts, my use of the word 'opinion' is not necessarily the same as the authors of that particular dictionary.

But the definition of the word IS the entire debate here. In every single dictionary you go to your going to find something very similar to the one I linked. You can't change the definition of a word to try and make it better fit your arguement.

Me saying "Blue is pretty" cannot be proven/disproven. You can either agree or disagree with an opinion. You can even partially agree or disagree with an opinion. You can't prove or disprove one.

Again I ask you to provide me with your own example of an opinion that can be proven/disproven.

 

[asteroth21nox]

Many people mistake their opinion for fact or truth. But a good opinion comes from experiance.But even a good opinion can be flawed. I'm not sure why people think it's terrible to be wrong, being wrong is part of the learning process. So of course your opinion will be inevitably flawed until you experiance enough to change it. I think the whole deffensive "it's just my opinion" phrase is meant to disarm somebody in conversation who we are afraid of changeing our minds, because of course we are all correct about everything in the realm of opinion. (phft! yeah right.) I mean, if it's just an opinion then we are not stateing it's fact even though we kinda really are.

 

[Sparrow]

Well, that's your opinions I suppose.

Zing!

 

[Maze1125]

I'm not arguing there are two types of opinion.
I'm arguing that there are two definitions of the word "opinion", which there are:

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

2 is where the statement "It's just my opinion." is justified.
But with 1, it is not.

Different types of opinion, different definition of the word opinion, that's just semantics. You still haven't produced a clear distinction between the two things because not everything falls neatly into the two categories that you've presented. There is no such thing as absolute certainty, only degrees of certainty, at what point on the spectrum of certainty do you cross from definition 1 to defintion 2?

They aren't a spectrum. They are two different definitions.
Asking where is point of change on the spectrum for this is like taking the word "wear" and asking where the points of change are on the spectrum between definitions 1, 4 and 12.

1. to carry or have on the body or about the person as a covering, equipment, ornament, or the like: to wear a coat; to wear a saber; to wear a disguise.
2. to have or use on the person habitually: to wear a wig.
3. to bear or have in one's aspect or appearance: to wear a smile; to wear an air of triumph.
4. to cause (garments, linens, etc.) to deteriorate or change by wear: Hard use has worn these gloves.
5. to impair, deteriorate, or consume gradually by use or any continued process: Long illness had worn the bloom from her cheeks.
6. to waste or diminish gradually by rubbing, scraping, washing, etc.: The waves have worn these rocks.
7. to make (a hole, channel, way, etc.) by such action.
8. to bring about or cause a specified condition in (a person or thing) by use, deterioration, or gradual change: to wear clothes to rags; to wear a person to a shadow.
9. to weary; fatigue; exhaust: Toil and care soon wear the spirit.
10. to pass (time) gradually or tediously (usually fol. by away or out): We wore the afternoon away in arguing.
11. Nautical. to bring (a vessel) on another tack by turning until the wind is on the stern.
12. British Dialect. to gather and herd (sheep or cattle) to a pen or pasture.

It's a meaningless question as each definition means a completely different thing.

And that is the problem. People take a phrase that only applies to one definition of "opinion" and apply it to the other. Even though the two definitions are essentially unrelated.

 

[Lexodus]

Alright now I just think your an idiot.

*SUPER FACEPALM OF ULTIMATE JUSTICE*

Irony, oh how entertaining it is.

Teeheehee! I'm right with you there. In fact, I'll help you with that facepalm, because doing it yourself would never be strong enough to convey the right amount of disgust.

You guys clearly didn't get what I was saying. I said he was an idiot becuase he doens't understand the defenitions of the words he's tossing around. Opinion is not a synonym for belief, it's a very similar word, but not a synonym. Somebody mentioned that I can't grasp analogies, they were wrong, I understand that it was an analogy, it was just a very poor one because it wasn't an opinion, like I said. It's not like I called him an idiot because I think he believes the world is flat.

Sigh. [http://www.wikihow.com/Use-You%27re-and-Your] I didn't think that needed to be explained.

Ah, I'm sorry, I assumed you weren't talking about my lack of apostraphe. In any case, implying that I'm an idiot because there are minor grammatical errors in my posts is hardly...productive.

Firstly, it's 'apostrophe'. Secondly... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Want_of_a_Nail_(proverb)]

Thanks for the correction. As for the second part, I'm not dissputing the intelligence of old proverbs... but it's a worthless reference in this case. My lack of apostrophe had no more consequences than a few quoted posts and a misunderstanding on my part. While a kingdom may have fallen for the want of a horseshoe nail, this thread will not be derailed for the lack of an apostrophe.

Eh. Try going without good grammar though, and some sentences become very ambiguous, which can potentially leave you in hot water.
Take this age-old example:

"A woman without her man is nothing."
OR:
"A woman; without her, man is nothing."

Whilst the first will get you slapped by feminists (come to think of it, actually, most women would slap you), the second is flattering to the same demographic.

Another (this time, a positive one) example of ambiguity is one of my favourite jokes in the world, and if anyone gets the reference, kudos to you.

"Speaking of names, I know a man with a wooden leg named Smith."
"Really? What's the name of his other leg?"

Aye, I'm certainly not advocating a lack of grammar, I quite often cuss out members of these forums for their blatent lack of grammar. So, I suppose what I'm getting at is: I agree with most of what you said, and with that said, we shouldn't derail this thread any further.

Fair enough. Good day! *tips hat and walks off, whistling a jaunty tune*

 

[Axeli]

? If you chalk everything down to individual experience you're getting back into the problem of it being impossible to discuss anything because different individual experiences explain your differences in position rather than the positions having any validity of their own.

I admit this to some extent true, because the truth is none of us really live in reality as much as an illusion of reality created by monkey-brain with the help of rather lackluster senses.

But since I find it rather safe to assume most of us have at least similar grasp on logic, mind if I point out that there are in fact people with pretty inherently different view on ethics.

Sociopaths, of course, don't really see why one should look out for other's in life. Maybe the right question would be why most people think we should, which I think is because out brains are "wired" to feel displeasure when others do. Sociopath's brain isin't, so the only reason one would see to help others would be to indirectly benefit oneself.
And I honestly can't figure out a reason why a sociopath would be doing wrong, because he lacks the ability to "feel someone elses pain", and that's frankly logically the only reason one would give damn.

So heck, I guess me and the sociopath are just enemies because we have conflict of intrest that can't be solved by reason.

 

[Lexodus]

Well, that's your opinions I suppose.

Zing!

'Those are'.

Double zing!

 

[Maze1125]

Opinions of that sort can be better than each other and the only way everyone is entitled to that sort of opinion is by law, not by philosophical justice.

Besides the only opinions that can't right or wrong are ones like "I like blue more than red", "I think carrots taste awful". Basically, only thing subjective is what causes you enjoyment or displeasure.

Those aren't opinions.
"Blue is better than red." and "Carrots taste awful." are opinions.
"I like blue more than red" and "I think carrots taste awful" are true/false statements about your own opinions.

Hmm... Splitting hairs with about some completely irrelevant... must have strong opinions about something else I said...

No, I say that because I also have strong opinions about people being careless with their phrasing.

However, opinions like "homosexuality is wrong" can totally be wrong... It's actually one of the most annoying things about the world that people think ethics are subjective (while of course at the same time secretely thinking they are the only one right). Of course that's not true.

The majority of philosophers of meta-ethics consider morality to be subjective.
I'd like to see your proof that they are "of course" wrong.

Ahh, there we go.
Morals, subjective, absolutely. Ethics, perhaps. Meta-ethics, not so much.

There's one basic thing about human experience; We all find things either pleasant or unpleasant (or neutral, or bit of both). It's the simplest way to define good and evil. This is of course using the terms pleasure and pain in their wide definition, not just the hedonistic manner.
This of course doesn't rule out egoism over altruism, but a mentally healthy person should find displeasure in pain of others and perhaps some higher form of satisfaction in considering other people equal.
But anyway, it always comes down to "does this cause notable amount of displeasure" when determining if an act is wrong. And frankly, I seriously doubt homosexuality caused anyone as much distress as it caused to gay people to drown them in swamps.

The theory of Utilitarianism comes under ethics or simple morality, not meta-ethics.

Yes, human-beings find things either pleasant or unpleasant.
But why does that mean doing pleasant things is "good"?

 

[Zamn]

I'm not arguing there are two types of opinion.
I'm arguing that there are two definitions of the word "opinion", which there are:

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

2 is where the statement "It's just my opinion." is justified.
But with 1, it is not.

Different types of opinion, different definition of the word opinion, that's just semantics. You still haven't produced a clear distinction between the two things because not everything falls neatly into the two categories that you've presented. There is no such thing as absolute certainty, only degrees of certainty, at what point on the spectrum of certainty do you cross from definition 1 to defintion 2?

o⋅pin⋅ion  /əˈpɪnyən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-pin-yuhn]

?noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.

"Blue is a pretty color" Is an opinion I have that cannot be proven/disproven.

An opinion by it's very definition (^^^^^) cannot be proven/disproven.

You say opinions can be proven wrong? Give me an example of an opinion that can be proven wrong and I'll show you someting that isn't really an opinion.

Dictionaries are a bad place to look for definitions, I don't think they should ever be used in debate. Firstly, no dictionary is entirely authorative, there are many different dictionaries and they don't all agree. A dictionary defintion of a word is still potentially open to argument. Following from that, dictionaries define words, not concepts, my use of the word 'opinion' is not necessarily the same as the authors of that particular
dictionary.

So, with this, you are essentially agreeing that even something such as a dictionary is subjective. Or at least that's what I'm getting out of it. Perhaps I'm not understanding your meaning, I could also assume that you are trying to argue that opinions,as a concept, can be wrong. I suppose this is fair, but if this is what your getting at, why should your word be believed any more than somone's who says opinions can not be wrong or right? The fact that we still have to consider this should demonstrate why this debate/discussion, can never really end with an absoloute truth. It is, just like the definition of a word, subjective to the opinions of all those who take part.

I suppose the kernel of what I'm getting at is that there's superficial subjectivity and real subjectivity. I can describe a something like dictionary definition as subjective because it's very difficult to determine whether it's right or wrong, and it would be overbearing of me to assert that this particular dictionary is wrong, even if I think it is, so instead I say "it's open to argument". As I was saying at the very start of the thread, this is like saying "I don't like jazz" rather than "jazz sucks" because it's more respectful, even though they essentially boil down to the same sentiment. What I'm arguing is that if you actually believe your opinion (which you presumably do because you hold that opinion) then you're impilictly accepting that opinions can be right or wrong, but you need to be at the same time aware of possibility of you being wrong even though you must currently believe yourself to be right.

 

[Lexodus]

? If you chalk everything down to individual experience you're getting back into the problem of it being impossible to discuss anything because different individual experiences explain your differences in position rather than the positions having any validity of their own.

I admit this to some extent true, because the truth is none of us really live in reality as much as an illusion of reality created by monkey-brain with the help of rather lackluster senses.

Since I find it rather safe to assume most of us have at least similar grasp on logic, mind if I point out that there are in fact people with pretty inherently different view on ethics.

Sociopaths, of course, don't really see why one should look out for other's in life. Maybe the right question would be why most people think we should, which I think is because out brains are "wired" to feel displeasure when others do. Sociopath's brain isint, so the only reason one would see to help others would be to indirectly benegit oneself.
And I honestly can't figure out a reason why a sociopath would be doing wrong, because he lacks the ability to "feel someone elses pain", and that's frankly logically the only reason one would give damn.

So heck, I guess me and the sociopath are just enemies because we have conflict of intrest that can't be solved by reason.

A sociopath (and Ayn Rand) is perceived of doing the wrong thing or, in modern, "being a gutless, heartless bastard' because altruism is a quality valued by the majority of the population. Therefore, anyone that is not altruistic is perceived as such because they are not conforming to society's standards.