Psychopathy is not universally agreed upon in psychology, but among some there is a consensus that psychopathy is highly heritable, and that psychopaths are lacking in conscience and empathy. Psychopathy is sometimes understood as a predisposition to consider other's feelings less. The idea that this is an alternative adaptive evolutionary strategy is suggested by, for example Hare, who uses the dramatic phrase "intraspecies predator".
Some philosophers posit moral realism (moral propositions can be objectively true) and some add that there is the capability to see such truth via intuition (this is probably a specific flavour of moral realism – does it have a name?).
In my limited experience the case in point was often cherry picked (how can you possibly not agree that a world where everyone suffers the maximum amount of pain is worse than any other world? or how can you possibly say that it's not wrong to murder people?) as opposed to how can you possibly not agree that it's wrong to eat meat?. I mean they deliberately chose examples where probabilistically it was unlikely that anyone in the room would disagree. This convergence in intuition (if that was intuition and not conformity) was then often cited as reason for its validity.
So, if we assume the existence of psychopathy for the moment until we see breaking new research in psychology – do they, who are from birth predisposed not to have moral intuition (or at least not the same as others), pose a problem for those moral realists (the specific ones who argue that moral truth can be intuited, not the other moral realists)?
My thought is, that it shows up the fact that what is "intuitive" is determined by majority vote, but what constitutes the majority vote is "just" the result of human evolution.
References of articles where this argument or a similar one was used by one side or the other would be most appreciated.