Malatesti Luca
University of Rijeka, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of Philosophy, Omladinska 14, HR-51000 Rijeka
Synth Philos. 2010 Feb;24(2):337-348.
A pressing and difficult practical problem concerns the general issue of the right social response to offenders classified as having antisocial personality disorder. This paper approaches this general problem by focusing, from a philosophical perspective, on the still relevant but more approachable question whether psychopathic offenders are morally responsible. In particular, I investigate whether psychopaths possess moral understanding.A plausible way to approach the last question requires a satisfactory philosophical interpretation of the empirical evidence that appears to show that psychopaths fail to draw the distinction between conventional and moral norms. Specifically, I will consider a recent philosophical debate polarized between supporters of rationalist and sentimentalist accounts of moral understanding. These opponents have discussed whether the case of psychopathy offers empirical support for their account and undermine the rival view. I will argue that the available empirical data leave the outcome of this discussion indeterminate. However, this implies that both these principal theories of moral understanding, if independently motivated, would imply that psychopaths have certain deficits that might affect their moral understanding and, consequently, their moral responsibility.
一个紧迫且棘手的实际问题涉及到对被归类为患有反社会人格障碍的罪犯做出正确社会反应的总体问题。本文从哲学角度聚焦于一个仍然相关但更易于探讨的问题,即精神病态罪犯是否负有道德责任,以此来探讨这个总体问题。具体而言,我将研究精神病态者是否具备道德理解能力。探讨最后一个问题的一个合理方式需要对经验证据进行令人满意的哲学解读,这些证据似乎表明精神病态者无法区分常规规范和道德规范。具体来说,我将考虑最近一场在道德理解的理性主义和情感主义解释的支持者之间两极分化的哲学辩论。这些反对者讨论了精神病态的案例是否为他们的解释提供了经验支持,并削弱了对立观点。我将论证,现有的经验数据使得这场讨论的结果无法确定。然而,这意味着,如果这两种主要的道德理解理论是独立产生动机的,那么它们都将意味着精神病态者存在某些可能影响其道德理解,进而影响其道德责任的缺陷。