Psychopaths and Blameworthiness
- Clay_10
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 12
- Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 12:00 pm
Psychopaths and Blameworthiness
I think this is an interesting topic and I am interested to see how others on this forum have to say about it.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15148
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Psychopaths and Blameworthiness
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Psychopaths and Blameworthiness
The larger issue of moral responsibility (if you view moral responsibility in terms of responsibility for doing harm), imo will depend on what neuroscience has to tell us as time goes on. The basic issue is free will, I think. Whether neuroscience eventually concludes it does or doesn't exist. Is someone morally responsible for actions they have no choice in doing? I'd say no. (But in practical terms they might still need locking up to prevent them doing more harm).
And with advances in neuroscience we might well also discover 'cures' for psycopathy, ways of repairing dysfunctional brain systems. This is an interesting analagous case, a man developed a fixation with child porn and other predatory sexual urges seemingly out of the blue. It was later discovered he had developed a brain tumour at the same time. Removal of the tumour removed the potentially harmful behaviour. It turned out the tumour grew back, and the antisocial urges returned https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... edophilia/
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15148
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Psychopaths and Blameworthiness
At first glance that is an unnerving case but on reflection I think some kind of sublimated or unconscious urge was more likely already present and then became florid. It's still morally significant, though, because such unconscious urges are obviously better not expressed and the ideal would be the ability to turn menaces into reasonable human beings without destructive or Clockwork Orange-esque solutions.Gertie wrote:This is an interesting analagous case, a man developed a fixation with child porn and other predatory sexual urges seemingly out of the blue. It was later discovered he had developed a brain tumour at the same time. Removal of the tumour removed the potentially harmful behaviour. It turned out the tumour grew back, and the antisocial urges returned https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... edophilia/
-
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
- Location: California, US
Re: Psychopaths and Blameworthiness
As I've stated before, morality by my definition is individual, since there's no way to prove logically that one moral system is absolute or even better than others. So by the psychopath's moral standards, he shouldn't be held liable. By my moral standards - which in this case are shared by almost everyone - he should be held responsible, and I feel good about removing him from contact with society (assuming that he's committed some dastardly deed). For practical purposes, as Greta said, he should be incarcerated for the protection of society, and any government that didn't do so would be derelict in its duty. But as to whether he should be held morally responsible, that's for each person to decide, and most of us would say yes, he should, and besides, I don't care if he's morally responsible, whatever that means, he's evil, let's put him away, and good riddance.Clay_10 wrote:Should a psychopath, or one lacking certain emotional capacities that aid in moral decision making, be held morally responsible for his/her actions? Are the emotional capacities psychopaths lack necessary to make moral judgments? I believe that is is where the debate lies. When lacking emotions or feelings such as empathy or remorse, can one still make a moral judgement based on other cognitive functions? Some argue that ,even when lacking a moral compass, the knowledge that one's actions will cause physical or emotional harm to another individual is enough to attribute moral blameworthiness. Though, some also argue that the knowledge of harm is not enough to attribute moral blameworthiness because psychopaths lack the ability to realize that others ought not to be harmed. The analogy is used that psychopaths know how others ought to be treated the same way a person with no such deficiency knows they ought to pay their taxes. A person might pay taxes because they fear legal repercussions, but not because they feel it is a moral obligation.
I think this is an interesting topic and I am interested to see how others on this forum have to say about it..
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7984
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Psychopaths and Blameworthiness
Clay_10 wrote:Should a psychopath, or one lacking certain emotional capacities that aid in moral decision making, be held morally responsible for his/her actions? Are the emotional capacities psychopaths lack necessary to make moral judgments? I believe that is is where the debate lies. When lacking emotions or feelings such as empathy or remorse, can one still make a moral judgement based on other cognitive functions? Some argue that ,even when lacking a moral compass, the knowledge that one's actions will cause physical or emotional harm to another individual is enough to attribute moral blameworthiness. Though, some also argue that the knowledge of harm is not enough to attribute moral blameworthiness because psychopaths lack the ability to realize that others ought not to be harmed. The analogy is used that psychopaths know how others ought to be treated the same way a person with no such deficiency knows they ought to pay their taxes. A person might pay taxes because they fear legal repercussions, but not because they feel it is a moral obligation.
I think this is an interesting topic and I am interested to see how others on this forum have to say about it..
Morally responsible? No, that would be illogical. Though he is fully legally responsible. I don't buy the idea that psychopaths are unable to know that others should not be harmed. They have the same intellectual ability to learn that rule. What they lack is an innate empathy to reinforce that rule. And this lack of empathy likely makes the rule seem absurd and would decrease the chance that they will choose to follow the rule.
- Clay_10
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 12
- Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 12:00 pm
Re: Psychopaths and Blameworthiness
Yes, I agree. Do not misunderstand my point, though. Obviously one who poses a threat to society should be removed. What I am questioning is whether or not a psychopath is morally responsible for his/her actions. Would it be comparable to other cases where a person must be removed from society even though most people wouldn't hold them personally accountable? Some examples would be a schizophrenic or a psychotic person. Personally, I think the fact that a psychopath knows that their actions will cause physical or emotional harm to another is enough to attribute moral blame. Though, I will say I see convincing arguments on both sides. David Shoemaker is a good professor to read about on this topic. He makes some interesting points.Greta wrote:I think the practicalities render the question moot. Dangerous psychopaths still need to be separated from the rest of the population. If a psychopath has sufficient self interest they can learn to stay within the rules to avoid consequences, in which case they can legally follow their parasitic impulses.
- TSBU
- Posts: 151
- Joined: August 17th, 2016, 5:32 pm
Re: Psychopaths and Blameworthiness
Empathy is not a thing that you have or you haven't, (in fact, it is nathing, it's a lie, empathy doesn't exist on itself, people usually say empathy when they shoul maybe say simpathy), like most of things, some people have more strong feelings than others. And it's not easy to measure, people feel sim... epathy for things similar to them. We don't suffer the same when we see a person we don't like, (like, in your case, a psychopath) without rights, suffering, when we see a close person to us, when we see a person we want to be with, when we see a person similar to us... and we don't have the same feelings, so we can't see them in other people and measure them. The same person can be for some a "cold stone" and for others an "hipersensitive person".LuckyR wrote:They have the same intellectual ability to learn that rule. What they lack is an innate empathy to reinforce that rule. And this lack of empathy likely makes the rule seem absurd and would decrease the chance that they will choose to follow the rule.
This topic is saying that people with not strong feelings shouldn't have "rights", wich is absurd, and in my eyes, completely selfish (like everything), that's evidently absurd for me. And LuckyR say that they have the same intellectual ability to learn that "rule" (why is better to keep people with some "rights"). Well, what if they don't have the intellectual ability?
Instead of measuring feelings, maybe you should measure thoughts and ability and give rights acording to that. I do it that way, because it's the best for me, and for that people. And evidently giving choices to people who can't solve easy problems would result in wrong solutions with more bad consequences.
-- Updated February 7th, 2017, 5:39 am to add the following --
PS: Obviously, i pay taxes because I'm forced to do it, and I pay the less they can.
-
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
- Location: California, US
Re: Psychopaths and Blameworthiness
From my point of view, where you're going wrong here is believing that there's an absolute answer to whether blame should be placed. There isn't. There are only individual opinions.Clay_10 wrote: Do not misunderstand my point, though. Obviously one who poses a threat to society should be removed. What I am questioning is whether or not a psychopath is morally responsible for his/her actions. Would it be comparable to other cases where a person must be removed from society even though most people wouldn't hold them personally accountable? Some examples would be a schizophrenic or a psychotic person. Personally, I think the fact that a psychopath knows that their actions will cause physical or emotional harm to another is enough to attribute moral blame. Though, I will say I see convincing arguments on both sides. David Shoemaker is a good professor to read about on this topic. He makes some interesting points.
-
- Posts: 1017
- Joined: November 27th, 2012, 2:11 am
Re: Psychopaths and Blameworthiness
But in incidents, lets say, where a person has no responsibility for being indifferent towards the suffering of some innocent, then any manipulations they use to cause harm (perhaps not advantages) to some innocent could be construed as chosen complicity in evil. Presumably they are gaining some satisfaction in the harm they are bringing about on the innocent person.
Seeking a personal satisfaction means seeking a personal reward.
- TSBU
- Posts: 151
- Joined: August 17th, 2016, 5:32 pm
Re: Psychopaths and Blameworthiness
And it must, if you are intelligent enough. You can't stop suffering in this world, you can't show your mind to other people and be understood, you can only see how they destroy themselves and others in the name of their absurd feelings. You can't change what they are.Supine wrote:Indifference is a trait in immorality too. Indifference can be acquired.
Seems like the problem is in seeking a personal reward or satisfacon, not in seeking harm... well, I see the problem in cause harm, indifference means nothing to me. I don't blame those who don't love me.But in incidents, lets say, where a person has no responsibility for being indifferent towards the suffering of some innocent, then any manipulations they use to cause harm (perhaps not advantages) to some innocent could be construed as chosen complicity in evil. Presumably they are gaining some satisfaction in the harm they are bringing about on the innocent person.
Seeking a personal satisfaction means seeking a personal reward.
- Clay_10
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 12
- Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 12:00 pm
Re: Psychopaths and Blameworthiness
Yes, I guess you are right. This question or topic seems to suppose an objective moral standard. But, I will say, the same question could be asked if we assume your moral standards. So my question is: Do your moral standards attribute blame solely for doing an act? Or do you believe other factors can play a role as to whether a person is worthy of blame?Wilson wrote: From my point of view, where you're going wrong here is believing that there's an absolute answer to whether blame should be placed. There isn't. There are only individual opinions.
I could be wrong, but I believe that this question can be answered even if you do not assume an objective morality.
-
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
- Location: California, US
Re: Psychopaths and Blameworthiness
Personally I feel that sociopaths are to blame for the evil they do. But that's my emotional sense. Logically I'm not so sure; I certainly couldn't prove it to the satisfaction of an independent observer. As a product of my heredity and upbringing, I'm pretty judgmental about evildoers - meaning, those that hurt the innocent - and while it would be illogical to expect a psychopath to behave in a compassionate way, I would still get angry at their actions, and would be happy to punish them. One problem with questions like this are the definitions - in this case, what does "blame" mean, exactly? I blame people like that, just as most individuals would, but other sociopaths maybe wouldn't. It's a tough issue.Clay_10 wrote:Yes, I guess you are right. This question or topic seems to suppose an objective moral standard. But, I will say, the same question could be asked if we assume your moral standards. So my question is: Do your moral standards attribute blame solely for doing an act? Or do you believe other factors can play a role as to whether a person is worthy of blame?Wilson wrote: From my point of view, where you're going wrong here is believing that there's an absolute answer to whether blame should be placed. There isn't. There are only individual opinions.
I could be wrong, but I believe that this question can be answered even if you do not assume an objective morality.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7984
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Psychopaths and Blameworthiness
You are clear on the difference between sympathy and empathy, right? They are not really similar beyond the vaguest sense.TSBU wrote:Empathy is not a thing that you have or you haven't, (in fact, it is nathing, it's a lie, empathy doesn't exist on itself, people usually say empathy when they shoul maybe say simpathy), like most of things, some people have more strong feelings than others. And it's not easy to measure, people feel sim... epathy for things similar to them. We don't suffer the same when we see a person we don't like, (like, in your case, a psychopath) without rights, suffering, when we see a close person to us, when we see a person we want to be with, when we see a person similar to us... and we don't have the same feelings, so we can't see them in other people and measure them. The same person can be for some a "cold stone" and for others an "hipersensitive person".LuckyR wrote:They have the same intellectual ability to learn that rule. What they lack is an innate empathy to reinforce that rule. And this lack of empathy likely makes the rule seem absurd and would decrease the chance that they will choose to follow the rule.
This topic is saying that people with not strong feelings shouldn't have "rights", wich is absurd, and in my eyes, completely selfish (like everything), that's evidently absurd for me. And LuckyR say that they have the same intellectual ability to learn that "rule" (why is better to keep people with some "rights"). Well, what if they don't have the intellectual ability?
Instead of measuring feelings, maybe you should measure thoughts and ability and give rights acording to that. I do it that way, because it's the best for me, and for that people. And evidently giving choices to people who can't solve easy problems would result in wrong solutions with more bad consequences.
-- Updated February 7th, 2017, 5:39 am to add the following --
PS: Obviously, i pay taxes because I'm forced to do it, and I pay the less they can.
Of course any individual can be intellectually challenged, but my point that psychopaths are not, as a group unable to understand societal rules is valid.
-
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
- Location: California, US
Re: Psychopaths and Blameworthiness
I think empathy and sympathy are very closely related and can almost - but not quite - be used interchangeably. Here's the internet definition of empathy: Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within the other being's frame of reference, i.e., the capacity to place oneself in another's position.LuckyR wrote: You are clear on the difference between sympathy and empathy, right? They are not really similar beyond the vaguest sense.
Of course any individual can be intellectually challenged, but my point that psychopaths are not, as a group unable to understand societal rules is valid.
Technically one could understand the feelings of another without any sympathy for that person - but that's getting into sociopathic territory. A sociopath - a person without concern for anyone but himself - might be able to analyze the emotions in another and use it to fake sympathy - but in my opinion that isn't really empathy - that's an intellectual activity. The basic idea of empathy is that you literally feel the pain (or happiness) of another person - in a reduced version, of course. It's an instinctual emotion that I believe evolved initially so that a mother would feel the pain and needs of her newborns almost as if they were her own pain and needs, especially in humans, since babies are helpless and would die without someone devoted to their care. And then evolution spread that to other family members and eventually to others in the groups or communities, because it aided in bonding together and cooperating and therefore surviving better.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023