Do theists need a threat to be moral?

[robvalue]

It's a very interesting topic I've discussed with people at length.

Below is a very general statement and I'm sure won't apply to all such people.

The best way I came up with to describe it is that life is like a game to a psycopath. They don't especially care about what they are doing, or what they do to people. Or even themselves. Yet they have a generally heightened pleasure/reward system, which acts as a big incentive. For this reason they often find a place at the top of big business, as CEOs, thrilled about the progress they make. And having no empathy means they can be ruthless in their decision making.

So really, life is just different to them. What they want out of it is different. No better or worse, in my opinion, because such terms are purely subjective. That's just how they are. It can of course end up being bad for those around them.

I appreciate the perspective, Rob!

Shouldn't the bold/underlined part be evidence that, when it does in fact "end up being bad for those around them", their way of acting is not better than some other way of acting?

Well, better is again entirely subjective. It's often not better from the point of view of the well-being of society at large. But they have made no choice to be this way.

In fact I take it fully into account. I don't expect the same behaviour from a psychopath as I would from a normal person. Obviously anyone who is killing people needs to be removed from society, but I don't hold a psychopath morally accountable. They have no morality, in extreme cases. They are amoral.