Not many societies accept such individuals, do they? Nope. Societies attempt to remove, one way or another, those incapable of living peacefully with their neighbors. It's all part of rational self-interest.
I find myself diverging somewhat from the rational self interest set.
I think there is an element of morality that is distinctly non-rational and even counter to self interest. For want of a better word, I will call it love.
Love obviously has utility for a species, but particularly in humans, it is rather unfocused. A purely utilitarian love would be concentrated on mates, children, relatives, tribes, nations, species, in roughly that order of priority.
But human love is diffuse and gets applied to pets, animals, living things in general, and even inanimate objects.
I'm sure the sociobiologists have some sort of calculus to explain all this, but I merely take note of it. Love, and the desire to benefit others and avoid harm to others, is a powerful motivator, and it is independent of religion and authority.
Actually, quite a few have throughout history.
Nope. Societies attempt to remove, one way or another, those incapable of living peacefully with their neighbors.
Many ignore it as long as they can benefit from it. Slavery is only one such example.
It's all part of rational self-interest.
Example, if two persons are castaways on an island and one decides to kill the other in the rational expectation that since no one can know that another person was with him and he can easily hide the remains, that rationally he will exist longer with the remaining food and thus have better odds of living long enough to be rescued, would it be moral or immoral for him to do so?
You see, the problem is philosophical. Sometimes immoral things are rational and in a person's best interest. And sometimes, even if they are irrational, they are right or wrong.
I'm not calling you a liberal, (i'm truly not) but your philosophy is kindred with theirs.