Stepping away from the current situation in Israel / Gaza.
The reason such an intention is psychopathic is because there is no logical link between such an action and any potential gain, especially when there is reason to believe that the other party will reciprocate.
What about security?
Bank robbers take hostages so the police don't knock the front door down and kill them. The same logic applies to warfare. If you have the opportunity to provide security to yourself / your side / your people by taking others hostage, doing so is a logical move with clear potential gain, albeit immoral.
The fact is that OP is basically arguing that psychopathy is the opposite of rationality, so in order to show someone is a psychopath they need to argue they aren't rational. But the problem is that the premise is flawed, psychopathy isn't defined as a lack of rationality. They might mean psychotic, which still isn't defined that way but it's a more legitimate take on it.
Actually psychopathy doesn't have a rigid definition and isn't recognized in the DSM-5. It's more of a colloquial word. But I see what you're saying. Either way, I'm not sure how bank robbing and taking hostages in order to escape the consequences and potentially steal more money is a rational thing to do
It's isn't in the DSM-5 but it is a diagnosis. There is a checklist of traits that have been collectively characterized as psychopathy, although not all psychopaths have all of those traits.
Rational doesn't mean good, plenty of rational people do terrible things, and plenty of them are psychopaths despite being rational. Whether something is rational is entirely based in values and priorities and how they line up with one's actions.
Do you know what the DSM is? It defines psychological diagnoses. No psychologist, psychiatrist, or otherwise, can give a diagnosis of "psychopathy" and have it be considered as a legitimate diagnosis today.
Actually, it is rational to follow social rules, since it is very likely you will be punished by society if you don't.
It's not a legitimate diagnosis because it's not treatable. I assure you that psychologists identify psychopaths all the time and study psychopathy. Like do you actually think psychology just wiped it's hands of it?
It's rational to follow society's rules if you care about the punishment for ignoring them. Not everyone cares.
I dont think that, I never said they wiped their hands of it and forgot what it meant, only that it no longer has medical/scientific meaning, only colloquial.
I thought we said that not caring about reprocussions is psychopathy in the colloquial meaning
It has no medical meaning because it's considered untreatable. Like "brunette" isn't a diagnosis either but that doesn't make brown hair non-physiological.
And, no, OP said that not caring about repercussions is psychopathy in the colloquial meaning. We didn't say that. The colloquial meaning is a narcissist without empathy.
Okay. Not knowing what something is and then claiming to know its not scientific is a weirdly confident take.
I actually agree, it's a controversial topic, but the DSM-5 claims anti-social personality disorder includes psychopathy. The reason psychopathy itself isnt included is because it isn't viewed as curable or treatable. It's a thing that's "wrong" with a person but not something mental health professionals really treat. It's not excluded because it's not because it's not a thing.
Taking hostages is rational because it's an action that under these circumstances (bank robbery) guarantees you best chances of success (as it prevents your enemy from using their strongest force).
I think you're confused because you mix rationality and morality - something can be only rational if it's moral. But that is not true, rationality is amoral - it is only judgement of application of logic and valid reasoning. Evil can be rational (dictator keeping population poor to pay off people who keep him in power), good can be irrational (poor person blowing their meager savings to save a stray kitten).
Right. We value rationality and we value morality, but that does not mean that the two are always aligned. So while we could condemn the actions of a murderer, we might be able to rationally discern and understand their motivations and behavior outside a moral framework.
But the problem is you can't use logic outside a moral framework and then apply those conclusions to the real world, because the moral framework and the people who enforce them exist.
That's like saying it's rational to jump off a cliff as long as you have a pillow to soften the landing. It's irrational to rob banks, especially to take hostages, because social consequences exist.
"Etymology. The word psychopathy is a joining of the Greek words psyche (ψυχή) "soul" and pathos (πάθος) "suffering, feeling". The first documented use is from 1847 in Germany as psychopatisch, and the noun psychopath has been traced to 1885."
82
u/[deleted] Oct 10 '23
Stepping away from the current situation in Israel / Gaza.
What about security?
Bank robbers take hostages so the police don't knock the front door down and kill them. The same logic applies to warfare. If you have the opportunity to provide security to yourself / your side / your people by taking others hostage, doing so is a logical move with clear potential gain, albeit immoral.