Hmm. Fair point. The extremes in self interest is what makes sociopaths dangerous.
The reason I have been pursuing this "devils advocate" opinion is because I watched this video.

I'm pretty sure that even science doesn't know exactly how to look at them yet. Or more like, they haven't decided which of the myriad of positions there are floating around is the most applicable as a general consensus to proceed with.
At least that was the situation when I last tried to look that topic up and had massive troubles trying to find any sort of intelligent article or some such that wasn't different from the former or next one.

That said, this being an individually exhibited thing, it stands as obvious to look at it appropriately for each single individual. There is no rulebook to being a psycho-/sociopath and for as long as neuroscience can't yet sufficiently figure out how the brain is wired, leaving psychology pretty much with little more to do than guessing case-by-case and comparing that with a library of individuals that have acted similarily, there will be no simple answer to this.

There's no doubt that empathy has serious limits as a moral decision-making heuristic. It is highly biased: We tend to be more empathetic to beings that are cute, that are similar to us in respect of nationality, and socioeconomic status, etc. We are also more likely to be empathetic to a single individual we can personalize than with large masses of people in need. Joshua Greene's (pdf link to a very long paper on morality) example of Jessica McClure is especially instructive here: In 1987, Jessica's family received over $700,000 towards efforts to get her out of a well. This amount of money, spent in other ways, probably could have saved many children elsewhere, but the story of one little girl in a well is more relatable than the faceless masses of the developing world suffering from malaria and poverty. Jesse Prinz develops these lines of thought here (pdf link).

But based on the diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality disorder, I'd say that psychopathic tendencies are not likely to be the solution to this problem. They tend to be pretty irresponsible (failing to meet financial obligations, engaging in impulsive/reckless behavior, etc.), so the stereotype of there being a very high number of psychopaths being CEOs or corporate executives is unlikely to be true. They also tend to think that they are the best, which is undesirable from the point of view of utilitarian decision-making. The more interesting question is whether or not antisocial personality disorder is the kind of condition that can excuse wrongdoing: Psychopaths are literally unable to understand moral reasons the way we do, and isn't the inability to distinguish right and wrong precisely the kind of mental disorder that excuses moral failings? Because psychopaths are completely dislikable figures, this line of thought doesn't get much traction, but it 's at least worth considering. Here's an interview with Walter Sinnott-Armstrong that might be useful.

Could you be a bit more specific? To the best of my knowledge, "psychopath" and "sociopath" are not even recognized diagnostic categories ("antisocial personality disorder" is the actual classification AFAIK), so playing fast and loose with terminology is to be expected somewhat.

In layman's terms, there's a difference between a psychopath and a sociopath. There is also a predisposition towards having tendencies of one or the other, though you might as well label that something different, since there's probably a word out there that suits it better.

Functionally, there isn't a whole difference in room between the two, but they aren't synonyms.

From a website that functions as an informal blog written by psychologists and psychiatrists for the common convenience of people. They recognize that 'psychopath' and 'sociopath' are not medically recognized terms and that they're both classified under APD, but they see the merit in distinguishing the general terms from each other.

Here's the link for the site.

Personally, I've always seen the inverse in how this person defines psychopaths and sociopaths (as I've understood it, how the author defines psychopaths is by and large what the commonly understood definition for a sociopath is, and vice versa for a sociopath), but it also leaves out how sociopaths tend to be a lot more patient and calculating compared to psychopaths.

I'd say that I might possibly qualify for anti-social personality disorder: I don't constantly lie to or deceive others, but I have no moral qualm with doing so; rather, I take practical considerations into lying and whether or not its actually beneficial for me to do so. I tend to have a general disregard for human life, and I don't have much of an emotional reaction when people die (though I'm willing to say that's more of a product of my upbringing). It's just something they do. It's not something I feel is worth getting worked up over. I also don't have remorse or guilt. I don't feel bad if I do something wrong. If I did something highly illegal, and no one would ever find out about it, then I consider the act as not happening.

However, I'm not going to overtly say that I do indeed have Anti-social personality disorder. I'd say I take more of an evaluative reaction to the positive aspects of what can arise from it, and try to add that psychology to my own life. I'm not financially unstable: I'm not wealthy, but I'm not lacking for funds either. I have no trouble at all with efficiency or planning: it's my job to plan out the future.

But there is some aspect of sociopathy that is... compelling, to say the least, with a psychology of unfettered/uninhibited behavior that emphasizes survival, success, and adaptation at the cost of conventional morality and ethics. It's one reason I have such admiration and emulation for such traits. I'll be so bold as to say that I consciously have chosen to utilize the more positive traits of sociopathy/psychopathy while not being constrained to the drawbacks.

Why?

I don't understand the concept of trust the way most other people do, but is it really all that duplicitous? I wouldn't lie to you if I didn't have cause to. More often than not, I'm blunt and straightforward to the point of causing offense and/or intimidation. Is a dishonest man so terrible when he's being honest with you? What would you have to lose by his dishonesty? More often than not, it would affect him, not you.

I don't trust people period, and I assume they don't trust me: it's much easier for getting down to business, once the air is cleared. 

You forgot to mention politicians....