My first impression is that the author is on treacherous philosophical ground. He seems distrustful of "group morality" (incidentally, I would argue that morality is inherently a function of groups) yet claims more sociopaths is a "good" thing. But in what sense does he mean "good"? As defined by the group morality he finds questionable elsewhere?
This sort of argument leads to a sort of self contradiction similar to "everything is relative" (in what frame do you evaluate "everything is relative"? Surely not a global, objective one.) If, more charitably, we assume it's not morality, per se, that he questions so much as a sheeplike adherence to it, that's fine, but it's also a bit of a false dichotomy (you're either slavish and unthinking, or a sociopath).
Further, the notion that sociopaths "take responsibility" for their subjective morality seems dubious. It seems just as likely to me that the moral thought of this group is mostly limited to post hoc rationalization.
My first impression is that the author is on treacherous philosophical ground. He seems distrustful of "group morality" (incidentally, I would argue that morality is inherently a function of groups) yet claims more sociopaths is a "good" thing. But in what sense does he mean "good"? As defined by the group morality he finds questionable elsewhere?
I'm unfamiliar with the author, but one possible way of resolving the apparent contradiction would be to distinguish between "good vs. evil" and "good vs. bad" - a solution originally, as far as I know, proposed by Nietzsche, where "good vs. evil" is a matter of group, "slave" morality, while "good vs. bad" is a matter of "master" morality. It actually maps quite cleanly to what the author is talking about, though I'm uncertain whether or not that is deliberate.
Edit: Also, statements like
(you're either slavish and unthinking, or a sociopath)
feel a bit like misreading the author to me; he's abusing the word "sociopath", which can be criticized, but here you appear to be using it in a non-value-neutral manner, which rather misses the point of the article.
This sort of argument leads to a sort of self contradiction similar to "everything is relative" (in what frame do you evaluate "everything is relative"? Surely not a global, objective one.) If, more charitably, we assume it's not morality, per se, that he questions so much as a sheeplike adherence to it, that's fine, but it's also a bit of a false dichotomy (you're either slavish and unthinking, or a sociopath).
Further, the notion that sociopaths "take responsibility" for their subjective morality seems dubious. It seems just as likely to me that the moral thought of this group is mostly limited to post hoc rationalization.