Does the existence of psychopaths pose a problem for moral realists who argue we have a moral intuition?

Question

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.

Answer 1

Moral realists who posit a reliable power of moral intuition are often called 'intuitionists'. And this epistemological view is commonly associated with the (semantic and metaphysical) non-naturalism of G. E. Moore and his disciples.

The leading analogy for this view is mathematics. We do not arrive at mathematical knowledge through sense observation. Nor do we rely on mere feelings. We have a power of intellectual intuition that gives us insight into the nature of numbers and their relations to each other, so that we can see the truth of basic mathematical principles. Likewise, moral intuitionists argue, we do not gain moral knowledge through sense observation or mere feeling, we use our intellect to see the truth of certain basic moral principles.

This suggests a way of evaluating the psychopath issue. To see what conclusions might legitimately be drawn from the existence of people who simply fail to see the truth of basic moral principles, we can ask what conclusions might legitimately be drawn from the existence of people who simply fail to see the truth of basic mathematical principles. If there were mathematically blind people who couldn't see why 2+2=4 or why any successor of a number is itself a number, then would this cast doubt on the objectivity of mathematics? Would it cast doubt on the intellectual intuition model of mathematical knowledge?

I'm not at all sure that it would. Consequently, I'm not at all sure that morally blind psychopaths cast doubt on the objectivity of morality, or on moral intuitionism in particular.

P.S.: One thing to bear in mind when researching this is that moral psychologists tend to talk about moral intuition as belonging to the affective and emotional side of human nature. This is obviously very different from the kind of moral intuition favored by traditional intuitionists in philosophy.

Answer 2

No, it doesn't. Let us take as an example the existence of the color red (that is, those frequencies of light that a majority of viewers would agree is 'red'). That frequency is a reality, and can be perceived, but it cannot be perceived or intuited by a blind person.

The analog is that there is a moral sense, which can intuit moral reality. Psychopaths are morally blind, and cannot perceive or intuit moral reality. But just as the existence of blind people does not pose a problem for color theorists, the existence of the morally blind does not pose a problem for moral theorists.

Answer 3

Would the existence of the mentally impaired pose a problem to the idea that man is sentient? Do genetically deaf pose a problem to the idea that we hear, or the genetically blind to the capability of sight?

So it's not easy to argue the lack of an innate sense simply by the lack of the universality of its experience. Or, characteristic traits are not by necessity universal.

Answer 4

i don't think the sense of intuition used in the question is reducible to majority rule, rather i think it's describing the subjective, phenomenal sense of right and wrong, whose absence is so central to psychopathy. In terms of how this relates to notions of innate abilities/moral realism, on the one hand their existence does seem to constitute counter-evidence for these positions, but you could argue there may still be a neglected or diminished moral sensibility whose influence has just been circumscribed from awareness ..

We have been looking at related areas in a unit which i'm presently doing .. Studies showing abnormal activity in certain cortices are difficult to interpret in inborn/ontogenic conditions as there is unfortunately no 'moral center of the brain', so there's no evidence for double dissociations, and can't be studied using lesion-deficit correlation as the structures involved encompass a degree of complexity that enables a high amount of variation in personal differences, so it can be difficult to make conclusions. there are significant commonalities shared by people with the condition such as it seems to be related to lesions on the amygdala and reduced activity in prefrontal cortex structures related to executive control. it's an interesting question i think the validity of 'folk psychology' notions of free choice are increasingly under siege in light of new findings in psychology and neurobiology

.

Answer 5

Ethical philosophers disagree on whether psychopathy poses a problem for the intuition-based argument; moral nihilists think that it does, while moral realists think that the existence of people who cannot sense moral truths does not make those truths irrelevant any more than the existence of color-blind people disproves the existence of colors. However, it does pose another problem. The most fundamental symptom of psychopathy is lack of affective empathy, i.e. the inability to vicariously experience the emotions of others; it is thought that this is the cause of psychopaths' amorality. If this is true, it implies that ethical intuition is not, like mathematical intuition, based on understanding of a set of facts that can be logically or empirically proven, as the intuitionists claim, but that it is a result of irrational emotion. This would seem to indicate that moral emotivism is correct.

Answer 6

Moral realism doesn't require that every sentient individual has regard for morality, only that there is a moral reality which is in some sense "out there" that individuals may choose to respect or not.

Answer 7

Psychopathy factor-1 (about 1% of the general population) and Sociopathy factor-2 Psychopathy (about 4% of the general population) was bred into the gene pool. As civilization came together land owners tended to marry land owners until we had kingdoms/countries. The top 1% (land and it's resources owners) of these kingdoms married within the top 1%, and their closest relatives and friends 4% married within the 4%. Think Kings and Queens 1%, and their inner courts 4%. Typically around 25-50 families (per geographical area) for hundreds to thousands of years (Egyptian Royalty) bred too closely. Such a small gene pool mating so closely for long periods speeds up adaptation to habitation (adapting to ones environment). Think of breeding cats or dogs that are closely related; which gives the offspring more of the attributes you are aiming for, but speeds up the domestication process (adaptation to habitation). This is part of a genetic survival mechanism. If a group of animals gets small and stays small this means that the environment has greatly changed, and their offspring must adapt as quickly as possible or go extinct. The idea for these individuals was to have a more educated, civilized/domesticated, and thoroughbred human, but messing with nature has it's consequences, and an imbalance was created. Imbalance = Evil and Balance = Good. In nature imbalances lead to greater imbalances; which lead to decay and death and/or death and decay. Balances lead to greater balances; which lead to growth and life. In psychological/sociological terms imbalance/division leads to greater imbalance/division; which leads to destruction and death and/or death and destruction. Balance/Unity leads to greater balance/unity; which leads to liberty and life and/or life and liberty. Hence, we ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, since now there was an imbalance in humanity emanating from the top of our societal structures; which lead to the need for "the first shall be last and the last shall be first". Once they were gods (pharos). Then they were descendants of gods (empors and empress). Next step down in this process they had "devine rite" as kings and queens. Now they are considered a personality disorder. Lets go back to adaptation to habitation, and we can see the attributes that were bred in and out. Example: Kings and Queens = 1 and Psychopaths = 2 as we compare. 1.Lives behind a wall, in a castle, and in a tower; 2. Low startle response and detached from others (antisocial in nature). 1. Everything they say goes without questioning and everything revolves around them; 2. Egotistical, thinks they are better, and thinks they are never wrong. 1. They live off of others; 2. Parasitical. 1. Have ultimate authority/power; 2. Seeks ultimate authority/power. 1. Must put their emotions aside to give orders to create/maintain order; 2. Shallow emotions. 1. The weight of the power/responsibility and being a symbol/ideal always crushes in the end leading to a resentment of responsibility and those who they are responsible for (too much responsibility) . 2. Dosen't take responsibility for their actions and has a "me against the world" mindset. Etc... I think you're getting the picture. For a moment I would like to return to what many people think of as antiquated terms, Good/balance and Evil/imbalance. There are individuals who are more "feelers" and individuals who are more "thinkers", so we need words that resonate with both. When you hear the word "Good" you think about good/positive thoughts and/or feel good/positive feelings. When you hear the word "Evil" you think about bad/negative thoughts and/or feel bad/negative feelings. Our lack of understanding of these terms lead to individuals misinterpreting their true meaning. To finally answer the question posed; "Does the existence of psychopaths pose a problem for moral realist who argue we have a moral intuition?", the answer is no. Darwin himself stated; Conscience, is by far the most important… of all the differences between man and the lower animals”.

Conscience = Moral Intuition.

There is another 17-18% of the general population who have what's referred to as "dark empathy"; which is "Cognative Empathy" that is used to benefit themselves without seeing how it can affect others, and many times not caring how it affects others when they can see. Psychopathy factor-1 and 2 = 5% of the general population and have an average of 3-4 children in which they directly affect and influence the lives of. 3-4 multiplied by 5% = 15-20% or an average of 17-18%. The 17-18% acquired their "dark empathy" and learned to use it a certain way from a parent or parents with Psychopathy.

Answer 8

Any flavor of moral realism would adhere to a p v. ~p model. However, there would generally be in any given moral dilemma a premise that the person is capable of agency. A psychopath is not included in that premise, thereby excluding them as a meaningful rebuttal to any argument. Any moral realist claim bears down on some given moral dilemma posed p v. ~p; consequently responding to the existence of psychopaths is out of scope rather than problematic to moral realism.

Answer 9

@Samuel Duclos

Psychopathy being lumped into the blanket category of antisocial personality disorder is just further evidence of not taking the condition seriously and not understanding it. My guess is a huge part of that is the field has psychopaths within it and they want to keep things this way. Psychopaths can be created as you mention, but they are most definitely also born that way. Those who became psychopaths due to perhaps a traumatic event or abuse in childhood I normally see referred to as the related term sociopath. When people speak of the super-rare 'curing' of psychopathy, I think it is this variety they are referring to.

A true psychopath cannot be cured because it is not an illness. Their brains do not work the same way. They don't just lack empathy, they also do not understand metaphors or abstract words. They cannot appreciate art of music the way a normal person does. Their intuition is completely broken and they do not understand forethought. It is not just a part of their brain not working, they use their brains differently. They know they are different and they know what they are. I am kind of amazed that they can mimic us and pretend to be normal despite a complete lack of frontal lobe activity. Yet nobody is seriously researching it because like I said the field has psychopaths in it and they don't want it to be researched.

The problem of the psychopaths is in all likelihood a recessive genetic trait inherited from a hybrid ancestor of modern man. Hybrid between two 'races' that superficially resembled each other but had been isolated and natural selection did its thing.