Moral Unreason: The Case of Psychopathy

Abstract

Psychopaths are renowned for their immoral behavior. They are ideal candidates for testing the empirical plausibility of moral theories. Many think the source of their immorality is their emotional deficits. Psychopaths experience no guilt or remorse, feel no empathy, and appear to be perfectly rational. If this is true, sentiment- alism is supported over rationalism. Here, I examine the nature of psychopathic practical reason and argue that it is impaired. The relevance to morality is discussed. I conclude that rationalists can explain the moral deficits of psychopaths as well as sentimentalists. In the process, I identify psychological structures that underpin practical rationality. Psychopathic individuals are perhaps best known for their flagrant disregard for social and moral norms. A number of psychopathologies are connected with violent and amoral behavior—such as schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder—but the profile of the psychopath is unique. Psychopaths are not subject to the profound disturbances of thoughts characteristic of these other conditions, but appear lucid and rational, yet peculiarly incapable of sustaining adult socialized behavior. They have dysfunctional personal relationships, characterized by violence, exploitation, and philandering. Most never gain any education to speak of or have successful careers due to an inability to put up with routine work and sustained mental effort. It is common for them to have criminal records of one form or another, often starting in early adolescence. Emotionally, they are significantly impaired, incapable of feeling guilt or empathy, their fear and pain responses are abnormal, and their other emotions are shallow compared to the normal population. They are manipulative, egocentric, and impulsive (Cleckley, 1976; Hare, 1993). Given their peculiar profile, psychopaths are of particular interest to moral philosophy. At first blush, it appears that they refuse to adopt social and moral norms, not because they are mad, but because they are not swayed by the emotions that influence us. They are unhampered by guilt, remorse, or fear of retribution. Central to this emotional landscape is a complete lack of empathy. This provides substantial support for sentimentalism as an empirical theory, particularly of the Humean sort. For Hume, the judgment that something is morally right or wrong is