Is the Psychopath Morally Blameworthy?

2min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

i don't think we'll have time to get into, but it's aninteresting question whether the psychopath who's broken in a particular emotional kind of way should be considered morally blameworthy. One is only i would call that an evil person, like, depending on how hermendously bad what they're doing are. It's one thing to do something morally wrong knowing it to be morally wrong, but just you can't be bothered not to do it. But if it's like torturing somebody, ora raping and killing and dismembering and aging someone around, just case they're black, or whatever, them,. then the fact that they are letting their own convenience trump

David and Tamler descend into the dark pits of Hell to look Satan in the eyes and discover the nature of evil. OK…that’s not fully accurate, we just read and talk about a couple of philosophy articles that analyze the concept. What are the features of evil people and acts? Does evil just mean ‘really really really really bad’ or is it categorically different in some way? Can you be evil without ever actually causing harm? Is Tony Soprano evil?

Plus we take a "moral alignment" quiz (inspired by role playing games like Dungeons and Dragons). We both want to end up as ‘chaotic good’ but does it turn out that way? And what kind of character is a unicorn?