Judging Deeds, Not Psychopaths

摘要

The target article, “What We Owe the Psychopath: A NeuroethicalAnalysis” (Gillett andHuang 2013), argues thatwe need to rethink our attitudes toward psychopaths because they are both victims and perpetrators of interpersonal violence. The authors highlight important ethical problems associated with labeling practices and attitudes toward marginalized populations and societal responsibility for a cycle of victimization (most notably in the prison context). However, determining how we can draw conclusions on social dues toward psychopaths based on such considerations is complex. Gillett and Huang’s evaluation of moral dues to psychopaths based on their status as neurobiologically diverse human beings appears to be one-sided in three respects: first, the difference between “successful” and “unsuccessful” psychopaths and related social status and even prestige has not been discussed; second, the difference between reactive and instrumental aggression has not been taken into account; and third, the elucidation of the genesis of psychopathy partially explains away the normative aspect of social norms.