If determinism is true, and free will is not, then morality and ethics are meaningless concepts. Morality and ethics require that a choice can be made in order for these concepts to have any meaning. But if a person has no choice, in the case of a deterministic world with no free will, then it does not make sense to say whether individuals can make more (or less) ethical or moral choices, because there are no options available to them except the one they must deterministically follow.

Hi, Galt. Need more Qi ? Or would you like to buy a Lucky Dip?

Just in case you missed it, Safetrade is back. If you find any bugs in the Safetrade sytsem - report it immediately.

Originally Posted by Squiziph

Only to those who do live with the concepts of "normal" morality and ethics, next to that someone who is amoral will probably still recognize the concepts in others, so would still be able to replicate behaviour to get optimal social benefits.

I think it all depends on which subjects someones attitude is amoral before you can individually judge him by the "normal" morals and ethics, or your very own. If those are thesame it is very easy.

So if you live in a deterministic world and your individual morals and ethics are aligned with the path you must follow the concepts should be able to exist.It would be a pain in the ass though if you can still experience those concepts when you must do what you do not agree with.

Originally Posted by Squiziph

Though im not entirely sure about the definition of no freewill, to me no freewill does not mean you can no longer experience feelings of hate or love. But if no freewill would also mean no more individual feelings, then the concepts of morality and ethics are done for.

The correlation (and definitions thereof) between free will and ethics/morality is clearly explained in the first quote as well as the implications of aforementioned correlation.

What I'm asking is, seeing as how determinists by that rationale are amoral, does that consitute them as psychopaths?

No you didn't. Whats more, in your attempt at an explanation you completely destroyed the presmise's of amorality. Amorlity is non-ethics. Thus, even if you don't accept 'normal' ethics and morality, it is still amorality.
Get it?

Originally Posted by Gorman

Although determinists say there is no free will etc, this has no impact upon the concepts of morality and ethics. Why? Because if we cannot accurately predict or analyse someone to a level that is meaningful in this regard, then it doesn't matter at all.

Originally Posted by Gorman

Hence it would be silly to attempt to apply a purely theoretical concept such that you can label determinists psychopaths.

Originally Posted by Gorman

Furthermore, you should be saying "does that mean all people are psychopaths", and even more than that, you should be saying something along the lines of 'if we take determinst theory as truth then...'.

Originally Posted by Gorman

But I do think that the concept of a 'psychopath' becomes redundant when you remove ethics and morality.

Originally Posted by Squiziph

If your presmise ( construct of your question ) is already full of holes how can my answer to only the question sufficient, you seem to think that the construct of you question was perfect and unquestionable yet it wasnt. And look at my first sentence of my first post. I did answer, you just dont like it.

Originally Posted by Squiziph

And if i am able to destroy the presmise of amorallity that easy..

Originally Posted by Gorman

By removing the choice between right and wring, and thus making the concepts of morality and ethics irrelevant do you not make the concept of a psychopath non-existent?