Theists: how do you account for psychopaths?

[Catholic_Lady]

Says who though? Isnt value subjective to the person who is doing the valueing? That's an argument I've seen said here many times. Obviously (and unfortunately) everyone doesnt matter to everyone.

Like I said, once we accept that needless suffering is bad... to say that one person matters more than another is just bias and special pleading. That's my point, if suffering matters full stop there's no justification for saying that yours matters more than anyone else's or anyone else's matters more than you. The whole reason it's bad is because of the nature of suffering, and the reason why I say needless is because sometimes you have to suffer a little bit in order to reduce MORE suffering in the long run. So ultimately, suffering is intrinsically something to avoid. This is why I say needless suffering.

Someone would need to rationally justify the fact that they were special and mattered more than anyone else. And of course, they can't do that.

It's subjective to say that someone matters more than someone else. But it's objective to say that everyone matters equally once we accept what matters that we all have in common. The point is that your suffering and my suffering matters equally for exactly the same reason: needless suffering is bad in and of itself. WHO suffers is irrelevant.

Even when we punish a murderer and make them suffer, that's only because they made others suffer even more and we're trying to prevent further suffering. Of course, revenge is not justified. If someone is punished there has to be some benefit that comes out of it. The benefit being ultimately less suffering. Otherwise it is unjustified.

I mean, this is also why we lock criminals up, of course. To stop them hurting others.

What if my justification is this: value is a matter of assignment. A thing has value only so far as it has been assigned value by the people who value it. So if I don't care about or don't like a particular individual, that person has no value to me. In other words, a thing has no value apart from the value the individual person gives it.

Again, I'm playing devil's advocate. What I've said above is actually something I've seen written here many times by atheists who believe morality and human value are subjective.

Are you saying human beings have intrinsic value? If so, says who?

[Edwardo Piet]

What if my justification is this: value is a matter of assignment. A thing has value only so far as it has been assigned value by the people who value it. So if I don't care about or don't like a particular individual, that person has no value to me. In other words, a thing has no value apart from the value the individual person gives it.

I would agree with you. But other people have values as well. And they matter just as much as yours for exactly the same reason. You see?

Are you saying human beings have intrinsic value? If so, says who?

No, I'm saying values are intrisically valuable. That's why they're values, lol.

But I think that it's very clear and axiomatic that violating someone else's values, or in other words, making them suffer, is more morally important than, say, eating a bowl of ice cream. There's clearly an asymmetry. Violating someone else's values is more bad than fulfilling your own is good. This is also why greed is considered a bad thing, whereas the opposite, avoiding harm, isn't. It's why paramedics are more morally important than entertainers. When someone is suffering there's a demand to help them. If someone isn't suffering but they could be having a lot of fun, well, that would be nice but there either isn't any moral imperative at all for them to enjoy themselves, or there's far, far less of an imperative than there is to help someone who is actually suffering.

Like I said, needless suffering being a bad thing seems like the most reasonable axiom of all. And we do need some axiom if we are to have any objective system at all. If someone asks me to prove that suffering is harmful that's like someone asking me to prove that poison is unhealthy. At some point we have to accept that certain things are clearly morally wrong in the same way that we have to accept that some things are clearly bad for our health. And, indeed, there's just as much evidence that suffering exists as there is that poor health exists. And to say that there's no way I can prove that suffering is harmful is just like saying there's no way I can prove that poor health is harmful. Then you may say "Well, just because it's harmful doesn't mean it is bad" but harm already implies something bad. The point is that this axiom is an extremely reasonable starting point for an objective morality... and the fact no one can give a single example EVER of something that is neither harmful nor hurtful nor deprives anyone of anything and is still bad somehow elucidates this axiom. EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE of something bad, that has ever been demonstrated, is either undesirable to someone, deprives them of something, or is harmful or hurtful to someone. Or in other words: Makes them suffer on some level.

[Catholic_Lady]

What if my justification is this: value is a matter of assignment. A thing has value only so far as it has been assigned value by the people who value it. So if I don't care about or don't like a particular individual, that person has no value to me. In other words, a thing has no value apart from the value the individual person gives it.

I would agree with you. But other people have values as well. And they matter just as much as yours for exactly the same reason. You see?

Are you saying human beings have intrinsic value? If so, says who?

No, I'm saying values are intrisically valuable. That's why they're values, lol.

But I think that it's very clear and axiomatic that violating someone else's values, or in other words, making them suffer, is more morally important than, say, eating a bowl of ice cream. There's clearly an asymmetry. Violating someone else's values is more bad than fulfilling your own is good. This is also why greed is considered a bad thing, whereas the opposite, avoiding harm, isn't. It's why paramedics are more morally important than entertainers. When someone is suffering there's a demand to help them. If someone isn't suffering but they could be having a lot of fun, well, that would be nice but there either isn't any moral imperative at all for them to enjoy themselves, or there's far, far less of an imperative than there is to help someone who is actually suffering.

Like I said, needless suffering being a bad thing seems like the most reasonable axiom of all. And we do need some axiom if we are to have any objective system at all. If someone asks me to prove that suffering is harmful that's like someone asking me to prove that poison is unhealthy. At some point we have to accept that certain things are clearly morally wrong in the same way that we have to accept that some things are clearly bad for our health. And, indeed, there's just as much evidence that suffering exists as there is that poor health exists. And to say that there's no way I can prove that suffering is harmful is just like saying there's no way I can prove that poor health is harmful. Then you may say "Well, just because it's harmful doesn't mean it is bad" but harm already implies something bad. The point is that this axiom is an extremely reasonable starting point for an objective morality... and the fact no one can give a single example EVER of something that is neither harmful nor hurtful nor deprives anyone of anything and is still bad somehow elucidates this axiom. EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE of something bad, that has ever been demonstrated, is either undesirable to someone, deprives them of something, or is harmful or hurtful to someone. Or in other words: Makes them suffer on some level.

Ok, so if a person doesn't have intrinsic value, then they only have value to those who value them. So if I dont value someone, that person has no value as far as I'm concerned. I do, however, value myself and my own well being. If doing something that will benefit me and be detrimental to someone else whom I don't care about, why shouldn't I go forward with it?

[Edwardo Piet]

Ok, so if a person doesn't have intrinsic value, then they only have value to those who value them. So if I dont value someone, that person has no value as far as I'm concerned.

They still have value to themselves and others, though.

I do, however, value myself and my own well being. If doing something that will benefit me and be detrimental to someone else whom I don't care about, why shouldn't I go forward with it?

Because other people's values matter too.

[Catholic_Lady]

Ok, so if a person doesn't have intrinsic value, then they only have value to those who value them. So if I dont value someone, that person has no value as far as I'm concerned.

They still have value to themselves and others, though.

I do, however, value myself and my own well being. If doing something that will benefit me and be detrimental to someone else whom I don't care about, why shouldn't I go forward with it?

Because other people's values matter too.

It matters to them, but it may not matter to me lol.

[Amarok]

Ok, so if a person doesn't have intrinsic value, then they only have value to those who value them. So if I dont value someone, that person has no value as far as I'm concerned. I do, however, value myself and my own well being. If doing something that will benefit me and be detrimental to someone else whom I don't care about, why shouldn't I go forward with it?

Because that would be self undermining

---

It matters to them, but it may not matter to me lol.

Then in the long run you only end up hurting yourself .

---

What if my justification is this: value is a matter of assignment. A thing has value only so far as it has been assigned value by the people who value it. So if I don't care about or don't like a particular individual, that person has no value to me. In other words, a thing has no value apart from the value the individual person gives it. 

Again, I'm playing devil's advocate. What I've said above is actually something I've seen written here many times by atheists who believe morality and human value are subjective. 

Are you saying human beings have intrinsic value? If so, says who?

Answered above

---

Says who though? Isnt value subjective to the person who is doing the valueing? That's an argument I've seen said here many times. Obviously (and unfortunately) everyone doesnt matter to everyone. 

Then those people are engaged in self harming behaviour

---

This line of reasoning is pure moral naivety

[Lightbearer]

Theists, I think, have been missing the true meaning to that question for as long as it's been asked.

It's not so much why would god make a psychopath that's important.

What makes the question important is that, clearly, if god is the creator, it makes psychopaths.

God also makes entrance to heaven conditional on repenting your sins and seeking forgiveness.

Psychopaths (see the full definition) cannot repent as they cannot identify anything with themselves to repent about.

Sure a phsychopath could pretend to repent but, if a god is a god, that god would know their repentance was fake (as should any priest or minister).

So, the bigger question is:

Why would god create someone with no chance or possibility to enter heaven and punish them for it?

[Seax]

I hear many religious theists saying they believe morality "comes from God". I find the existence of psychopaths to be troubling to this idea. I wonder if you'd share how this fits in for you. Please add some explanation if you can, following your poll choice.

I'm using the scientific definition of a psychopath (a person with no empathy). They are generally considered to fall outside the scope of morality, as they have no innate feelings of right and wrong.

Many thanks!

It depends on the theology, but this is just another example of the problem of evil. Most Christians other than Calvinists have already explained this through free will. I'm not sure what the Calvinist explanation would be.

Whether free will can really account for the problem of (human) evil really depends on whether or not psychopathy is something one can control if it is something environmentally or genetically determined. Everything I've read on the subject says it's mostly genetic, so I don't really buy the free will excuse. I have a Catholic friend that tries to convince me of Christianity, and a lot of his apologetic explanations make sense, but total free will is something I just can buy into. Man can do as he wants, but he can't want as he wants, and obviously some people are born without any want to be moral.

My own belief is that God or Nature cares not about your feelings or wellbeing. Morality is an evolved instinct that facilities cooperation and allows those groups that emphasis it to overcome those that don't. This is the Will of God. That's all there is to it.

[arewethereyet]

Theists, I think, have been missing the true meaning to that question for as long as it's been asked.

It's not so much why would god make a psychopath that's important.

What makes the question important is that, clearly, if god is the creator, it makes psychopaths.

God also makes entrance to heaven conditional on repenting your sins and seeking forgiveness.

Psychopaths (see the full definition) cannot repent as they cannot identify anything with themselves to repent about.

Sure a phsychopath could pretend to repent but, if a god is a god, that god would know their repentance was fake (as should any priest or minister).

So, the bigger question is:

Why would god create someone with no chance or possibility to enter heaven and punish them for it?

Moderator Notice
Please note the message regarding posting to old threads.  Also please familiarize yourself with the rules.