To prove to students that psychopaths were not morally responsible, a Duke University professor of practical ethics took the audience through a “four-course meal.”

The meal consisted of the following: the criteria for what makes someone a psychopath; whether or not psychopaths are capable of moral decisions; if they’re responsible for these decisions; and what was to be done about psychopaths. The lecture, given by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, a professor in Duke’s department of philosophy on Monday, raised controversy among some audience members.

Sinnott-Armstrong ensured the meal was vegetarian, to which the audience in Hall of Languages laughed and approved.

He added that to be morally responsible, one had to be receptive of moral reasoning, which psychopaths are not. As support for this conclusion, he referenced a scientific test that showed an absence of amygdala activity in a psychopath’s brain.

“The tentative conclusion for this,” Sinnott-Armstrong said, “is that psychopaths only pretend to think things are wrong to manipulate other people.”

To determine the criteria for what makes someone a psychopath, Sinnott-Armstrong presented about 30 categories that a psychopath for which they would test positively. Some of these included impulsivity and criminal versatility.

“It is my view that it’s of a biological kind,” Sinnott-Armstrong said, “it’s a disorder, as well as an evolved lifestyle”.

Sinnott-Armstrong said he thought it was also unlikely that psychopaths could make moral decisions.

“There’s a 96 percent agreement of what’s morally right amongst the general public,” Sinnott-Armstrong said. But a psychopath “doesn’t think about [his crime] in a moral way, he’s only considering his own goals.”

Additionally, he said psychopaths were ultimately not responsible for their actions.

“They have the morals of a 3- or 4-year-old kid,” he said.

This caused some controversy among the audience, when Ada Anbar, an educator for more than 40 years, argued during the Q-and-A session that certain children possess the ability to produce empathy.

Sinnott-Armstrong defended his point, saying the problem was not in empathy but in the moral judgment of the psychopath.

“He’s not an early educator,” Anbar said in an interview after the lecture. “I object to him comparing psychopaths to children.”

Sinnott-Armstrong also suggested that psychopaths be “quarantined” as a way to prevent them from entering society.

“We need to form a separate facility,” he said, “where they won’t hurt or manipulate other prisoners.”

But Sandra Hewett, a professor of neuroscience and biology at Syracuse University, disagreed with this idea, saying that there is no clear difference between quarantine and punishment.

“He’s doing scientific things as a philosopher,” she said. “I agree with the conclusion but I’m not sure the logic gets there.”

Published on September 30, 2013 at 11:59 pm

Contact Jesse: jlnich02@syr.edu