[MD] Morality and Prudence

[Carl Thames]

> DMB said:
> ...If we comply simply to avoid punishment, that is not morality at all.
> It's merely fear-driven obedience, coerced compliance. This is how
> most psychopaths stay out of jail. They will avoid murder because it
> puts them at risk of going to jail. It's not because THEY think it's
> morally wrong, but because they know that other people think it's
> wrong. One philosopher who looked into this says the immoral
> psychopath knows what's moral in the same way that an atheist can
> have knowledge of theology without actually believing any of it
> himself.

To make an important distinction here, psychopath and sociopath are not 
interchangable words.  A psychopath experiences a break with reality, 
whereas a sociopath has no conscience.  A psychopath may be operating in a 
completely moral position when he acts, based on whatever delusion is in 
charge at the moment.  A sociopath feels nothing for anyone other than 
him/herself.  As an example, there was a program on several years ago that 
involved talking with prisoners who were sentenced to life terms, without 
parole.  One of the prisoners explained that when he killed his brother, 
sister-in-law and her brother, he was functioning as the "Red Knight" and 
was serving the greater good by getting on his motorcycle and taking out the 
people he saw as completely evil.  Wasn't that a moral position?  A 
sociopath, on the other hand, has no problem breaking laws, as he/she 
doesn't believe those laws apply.  Laws are for other people.  The sociopath 
may be completely aware that what he/she is doing is considered wrong, or 
immoral, but aren't bothered by that fact.  (For the record, it's no longer 
called "sociopath" and is now called "Antisocial Personality Disorder" in 
the DSM IV (TR).  The definition of the disorder is: "The essential feature 
of Antisocial Personality Disorder is a pervasive pattern of disregard for, 
and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early 
adolescence and continues into adulthood.")

Based on the definition provided by the American Psychological Association, 
it would appear that ALL morality is based in the intellect.  One definition 
of evil is intelligence without compassion.  I think that the intelligence 
part is necessary.  A tiger that kills an antelope isn't being evil, it's 
being a tiger.

> Matt:
> The reason why Dave's comment appears to erect a
> prudence-morality distinction is because it sounds like the kinds of
> things social critics who also viewed themselves as upholding the
> Kantian distinction while being against utilitarianism would say.  The
> last half of the 19th-century especially gave birth to this kind of line
> of thought because Kantian liberals wanted to distinguish themselves
> from the wildly successful utilitarian liberals (with origins in
> Smith/Hume, but mainly the Bentham-Mill-Mill sequence).  The
> 19th-century utilitarians were also taking advantage of their alliance
> with science, by which I mean the rhetoric of science.  As the heirs
> of epistemological empiricism, they told everyone that their method
> was science applied to ethics/politics.  People attracted to saying
> that the avoidance of punishment does not count as moral behavior
> were, then, largely Christians and rationalists (by which I mean,
> rationalists who had lost to empiricism, and so reconstituted
> themselves as Kantian idealists).

It would seem that a sociopath would be able to learn not to harm others, 
either from a desire to avoid punishment or to achieve some kind of reward. 
Based on the above, this would NOT be moral behavior.  For the behavior to 
be moral, it must stem from inside the person, rather than from an outside 
agency.  From this perspective, would it be possible for someone to behave 
in a moral manner without feeling anything for the person their dealing 
with?