Moral responsibiliy

Originally posted by Conrau K
Psychopaths cannot judge what is morally wrong (that is basically what they are defined as). It is easy then to say that they have no intellect- but many quite obciously do.
I think i'll digress here.
The Vatican's poor understanding of biology often makes it difficult to translate their ideas into a scientific reality. However, my Catholic handbook tel ...[text shortened]... thinks is right or wrong (you just said we judge by our intellect not our emotion).

I don't know if the term 'psychopath' is used in medical literature these days - but IIRC the term refers to someone who shows no signs of remorse or regret - both of which are emotional states.

Your pointless snide remarks on the Church aside, I never said that one's emotional state (as with suicide) cannot impair one's judgment. What I did say was that conscience is about what you judge is right or wrong, not what you feel is right or wrong. The first is an operation of the intellect, the second of emotion. Intellect can help understand or control emotion, and emotion can either enhance or interfere with the intellect - but the two are, nevertheless, distinct concepts.

Surely you mean, what he thinks is right or wrong

No - I meant what I said. Read the whole post again.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I don't know if the term 'psychopath' is used in medical literature these days - but IIRC the term refers to someone who shows no signs of remorse or regret - both of which are emotional states.

Your pointless snide remarks on the Church aside, I never said that one's emotional state (as with suicide) cannot impair one's judgment. Wha ...[text shortened]... i]thinks[/i] is right or wrong

No - I meant what I said. Read the whole post again.[/b]

What I did say was that conscience is about what you judge is right or wrong, not what you feel is right or wrong. The first is an operation of the intellect, the second of emotion. Intellect can help understand or control emotion, and emotion can either enhance or interfere with the intellect - but the two are, nevertheless, distinct concepts.

Usually we do not hold psychopaths responsible for their actions. We also often discover anomalous brain function as well. Do they still have a conscience?

Your pointless snide remarks on the Church aside, I never said that one's emotional state (as with suicide) cannot impair one's judgment.

I am not making snide remarks. It is true: they do not understand biology.

Many people would also say that suicidees could not properly judge on their actions. Do you still have a conscience?

No - I meant what I said. Read the whole post again.

Reading...

Originally posted by Vladamir no1
Yes but there would be no moral responsibility without social morals that are so ingrained we aren't really fully aware how they embody us.....Or are you implying that a certain morality is intrinsic!?

No No No!

Society can have morals (indeed they intrinsic to a society). But if we have no accountability we cannot have moral responsibility.

Originally posted by lucifershammer

No - I meant what I said. Read the whole post again.[/b]

Nope, you said the conscience rules on an intellectual basis. Thus we would not judge by what we feel is right or wrong but what we think.

Originally posted by Conrau K
No No No!

Society can have morals (indeed they intrinsic to a society). But if we have no accountability we cannot have moral responsibility.

Was it Nietzsche who said (In the'Twilight of The Idols' if my memory serves me well)...That humainty is allowed to believe that they have free will so that they may feel a certain guilt.....
If this is so, according to Freud its this guilt that controls us, our superego if you like.......
Without social morals we would have no guilt, but it is guilt not a sense of moral responsibility....What say you?

Originally posted by Vladamir no1
Was it Nietzsche who said (In the'Twilight of The Idols' if my memory serves me well)...That humainty is allowed to believe that they have free will so that they may feel a certain guilt.....
If this is so, according to Freud its this guilt that controls us, our superego if you like.......
Without social morals we would have no guilt, but it is guilt not a sense of moral responsibility....What say you?

Again I do not think that a lack of guilt would lead to nihilism- or anything like that. And if guilt is the only thing holding society back then I doubt that society would survive for very long. We are also controlled by feelings of love and compassion- Nietzsche was just a cynical old man who lived reclusively away from the rest of scoeity. What would he know?... And Freud! Dont get me started on him.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Again I do not think that a lack of guilt would lead to nihilism- or anything like that. And if guilt is the only thing holding society back then I doubt that society would survive for very long. We are also controlled by feelings of love and compassion- Nietzsche was just a cynical old man who lived reclusively away from the rest of scoeity. What would he know?... And Freud! Dont get me started on him.

But love and compassion are they intrinsic, are they not social structures as well, spears that pierce our ontological priority, as do categories of gender and race......The West is a guilt sociey, the japanese a shame society and the Chinese a face society (as in loss of face)...None of these are natural but are controlling mechanisms to keep in check our primal urges...Morals are a chimera they're just so embedded that people dont realise this....

Originally posted by Vladamir no1
But love and compassion are they intrinsic, are they not social structures as well, spears that pierce our ontological priority, as do categories of gender and race......The West is a guilt sociey, the japanese a shame society and the Chinese a face society (as in loss of face)...None of these are natural but are controlling mechanisms to keep in check ...[text shortened]... primal urges...Morals are a chimera they're just so embedded that people dont realise this....

I dont know what you are talking about. Let me just explain that if society accpete that there was no such thing as moral responsibility we would not suddenly eat our children.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I dont know what you are talking about. Let me just explain that if society accpete that there was no such thing as moral responsibility we would not suddenly eat our children.

But that's so obvious, why even state it?!! If society suddenly decided there's no moral responsibility it would take ages for that to take affect, we're too embodied by morality to do anything other than conform (generally)....If this supposed situation occured that you put forward, it would take time for that to effect society and if did effect society in a detrimental way, something else would be used to control 'us', something else would take the place of morality...I don't really understand what it is exactly that you're getting at!!????😕

Originally posted by Vladamir no1
But that's so obvious, why even state it?!! If society suddenly decided there's no moral responsibility it would take ages for that to take affect, we're too embodied by morality to do anything other than conform (generally)....If this supposed situation occured that you put forward, it would take time for that to effect society and if did effect societ ...[text shortened]... of morality...I don't really understand what it is exactly that you're getting at!!????😕

What I am saying is that morality does not rely on moral accountability. Moral accountability is irrelevant to any discussion on morality.

Originally posted by Conrau K
What I am saying is that morality does not rely on moral accountability. Moral accountability is irrelevant to any discussion on morality.

Yes but where does moral accountabiltyt come from? is it intrinsic, does it derive from socila morality?

Originally posted by Vladamir no1
Yes but where does moral accountabiltyt come from? is it intrinsic, does it derive from socila morality?

Where does moral accountability come from?

Well, considering that we're disputing its existence...

Social morality?

No. I suspect that's a completely different subject.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Where does moral accountability come from?

Well, considering that we're disputing its existence...

Social morality?

No. I suspect that's a completely different subject.

there is no moral accountability bar that which derives from social morality there is no polarity between the two, they do not differ

Originally posted by Conrau K
Usually we do not hold psychopaths responsible for their actions. We also often discover anomalous brain function as well. Do they still have a conscience?

no1 is the legal expert here, but IIRC the legal standard for sanity is the ability to distinguish licit and illicit actions. We do hold serial killers and pyromaniacs responsible for their actions, for instance.

Anomalous brain function is relevant only if it impairs their judgment, not their emotions.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Nope, you said the conscience rules on an intellectual basis. Thus we would not judge by what we feel is right or wrong but what we think.

I said that was the Catholic view* of conscience. The popular view of conscience is that it is about feeling remorse or regret.

---
* Strictly speaking, it's a philosophical view that has been upheld by the Church. You don't need to be Catholic to believe it, however.