Theists: how do you account for psychopaths?

[brewer]

Sure, you could call a psychopath's code of conduct their morality. It would be at the absolute extreme end of the scale, being pure self-centered pragmatism. So if that is the morality God gave them, then he wants certain people to not take anyone else's feelings or wellbeing into account when making decisions. It would be, as you pointed out, vastly different to almost everyone else's morality.

Now, there could be a pragmatic reason for God to do that, of course. Not one that makes sense to me, since God needing to be pragmatic implies he has actual obstacles to overcome. That in turn implies he either put them there himself or allows others to.

PS: the important point is that someone can't choose to not be a psychopath, any more than we can choose to become a psychopath. I imagine that one could chip away at one's morality over time, or be massively abused or brainwashed, and end up similar to a psychopath. But I expect nothing short of some sort of invasive surgery could alter a psychopath.

Ah Oh Indy, here comes Satan!

[Catholic_Lady]

Which is why I don't believe morality is subjective.

What I just described is the essence of subjective. You and the psychos have two different sets. And they ain't never gonna believe yours.

Two people having 2 different opinions about something doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer. A person can think rape is a good thing. But he is wrong, it isnt. Thats what i mean by morality being objective.

---

Sure, you could call a psychopath's code of conduct their morality. It would be at the absolute extreme end of the scale, being pure self-centered pragmatism. So if that is the morality God gave them, then he wants certain people to not take anyone else's feelings or wellbeing into account when making decisions. It would be, as you pointed out, vastly different to almost everyone else's morality.

Now, there could be a pragmatic reason for God to do that, of course. Not one that makes sense to me, since God needing to be pragmatic implies he has actual obstacles to overcome. That in turn implies he either put them there himself or allows others to.

PS: the important point is that someone can't choose to not be a psychopath, any more than we can choose to become a psychopath. I imagine that one could chip away at one's morality over time, or be massively abused or brainwashed, and end up similar to a psychopath. But I expect nothing short of some sort of brain surgery could alter a psychopath.

PPS: I forgot that Drich has no problem with God being a monster, and so allowing Satan to make psycopaths (or whatever he was talking about) is not an issue.

Im not sure what you mean by "the morality God gave them." That's not how I believe morality works or what it is, so it's a bit of a strawman.

[The Grand Nudger]

What if theres a greater good to it, though...........?

[brewer]

What I just described is the essence of subjective. You and the psychos have two different sets. And they ain't never gonna believe yours.

Two people having 2 different opinions about something doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer. A person can think rape is a good thing. But he is wrong, it isnt. Thats what i mean by morality being objective.

JFC, don't bring rape into this, unless your willing to concede that all rapists are psychopaths. (be careful here)

So do you get to say what is correct for them? Nope, you only get to say what is correct for you. Society as a whole gets to say what is correct for them (with in limits). It's called laws.

[Catholic_Lady]

Two people having 2 different opinions about something doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer. A person can think rape is a good thing. But he is wrong, it isnt. Thats what i mean by morality being objective.

JFC, don't bring rape into this, unless your willing to concede that all rapists are psychopaths. (be careful here)

So do you get to say what is correct for them? Nope, you only get to say what is correct for you. Society as a whole gets to say what is correct for them (with in limits). It's called laws.

Don't know what else to tell you. I hold the position that morality is objective. I know that you don't agree with that.

[robvalue]

Two people having 2 different opinions about something doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer. A person can think rape is a good thing. But he is wrong, it isnt. Thats what i mean by morality being objective.

JFC, don't bring rape into this, unless your willing to concede that all rapists are psychopaths. (be careful here)

So do you get to say what is correct for them? Nope, you only get to say what is correct for you. Society as a whole gets to say what is correct for them (with in limits). It's called laws.

Right, and this is the difference between laws and morality. I wouldn't judge a psychopath to be immoral if they were hurting someone, but I want them stopped anyway. Laws protect society, whereas morality is simply an assessment of “goodness” made by a particular observer.

Edited mistake in bold.

[Catholic_Lady]

JFC, don't bring rape into this, unless your willing to concede that all rapists are psychopaths. (be careful here)

So do you get to say what is correct for them? Nope, you only get to say what is correct for you. Society as a whole gets to say what is correct for them (with in limits). It's called laws.

Right, and this is the difference between laws and morality. I would judge a psychopath to be immoral if they were hurting someone, but I want them stopped anyway. Laws protect society, whereas morality is simply an assessment of “goodness” made by a particular observer.

Most laws tend to come from morality.

[rskovride]

What about the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793?

That seems to be right in line the morality in the bible. Exodus 21

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Psychopaths don't have to be immoral. They have free will like everyone else.

Sure, they have free will, but morality means nothing to them. They haven't been given the equipment to care about it. This is what I find odd from a "design" perspective.

I've read a bit about how it does make some sense from an evolutionary perspective, as sometimes situations call for pure pragmatism.

Were Abraham, Moses, and Mohammed psychopaths?

[Angrboda]

Morality is more than behaving according to somebody else's idea of what is moral.  It means having a conscience.   A psychopath who doesn't kill in order to avoid being punished is not being moral. Their acts have the appearance of morality, but not the substance.  Just imagine a world where everybody was psychopathic.  Where would our morals come from then?

True, but he's not being immoral, either. Though I guess if he were to secretly wish death on people, that would be immoral, but psychopath means you don't have empathy, not that you necessarily like it when people die or suffer.

The capacity to be moral is also the capacity to be immoral, so, no, a psychopath wouldn't have that capacity. To be a moral being is to have the feeling that one has a universal duty to behave in certain ways, as an immediate and direct part of imagining the behavior. A psychopath doesn't have such thoughts. Everything is essentially equal in the eyes of a psychopath.

Is a psychopath not made in the image of God? Is the law not written in their hearts? Do psychopaths have different souls than normal individuals? Isn't God responsible for the nature of our souls?

According to Neo and many traditional Christians, it is the fact of God's moral perfection that is the "cause" of the existence of objective morality. Yet with psychopaths, God's perfection is essentially inert. What does that say about the notion that God's moral perfection is responsible for morals? If God's moral perfection is not the cause of morals, then what part does He play?

I notice you claimed that most laws come from morals, ignoring my question about where such norms, laws, and morals would come from if we all were psychopaths. Apparently you chose not to consider the question. Will you consider it now?