1. 1
The Secret Within the Cracks of an Amoralist or Psychopaths False Persona
Ariel Del Pinto
Dr. Carl
Virtue Ethics
March 19th
, 2014

2. 2
Society is built upon a dependence of moral and natural law in order to preserve peace
and the survival of the species. Members of society are constantly judging one another based on
character traits adopted from behavior and attitudes from a moral perspective. Children are
taught the difference between right and wrong so that they may grow up and become moral
agents. There are many different philosophical approaches to morality and how a moral agent
ought to act. In Aristotelian virtue ethics, there is a concentration on analyzing the actions and
reasons behind the motivations of a moral agent. What makes virtue ethics different from
competing ethical theories, such as deontology and utilitarianism is that the virtue ethicist’s holds
an agent-centered view whereas the other ethical theories hold a rule-based view. A virtuous
person is one who acts for virtue in itself and not based off of duty or societal stigma. In virtue
ethics, a virtuous person is motivated to be good. They are not motivated to be good because it is
they duty to be good or because it will generate the highest amount of happiness for the greatest
sum. The virtuous person will be good because he or she wants to be a good person. Amoralists
and psychopaths however, are not and cannot be virtuous persons. The question is how does an
ethical theory such as virtue ethics take cognitively different people such as amoralists and
psychopaths into account in an agent-centered theory? In order to answer this question, it is
necessary to examine the criteria of a virtuous person, moral motivation and how amoralists and
psychopaths fail to be counted within virtue ethics due do their status of not being virtuous
agents.
There are many reasons for a person to act virtuously. However, there is a difference in
acting virtuously and being a virtuous person. A “virtuous Aristotelian agent does not
characteristically act from that principle-of-movement…share[d]-with-the-animals, as a child

3. 3
does, but from reason (logos) in the form of ‘choice.’”1
A virtuous agent is one who is capable of
rationality and reason. A virtuous agent also possesses free will and/or choice, and thus chooses
to perform a virtuous act for X reasons. For instance, a virtuous agent will donate money to
charity because they actually want to help the less fortunate. The virtue in this example is charity
and the reason is because they wanted to help another for no reason but to charitable. A virtuous
agent does not act out of habit, or because they were told to act that way, similar to a child’s
behavior, but because the virtuous agent rationally and freely chooses to be virtuous. A child
may act virtuously, like share their toy with another child, because an authority figure told them
to do so. The virtuous agent does not need such instruction, virtue is a part of their character and
duty does not dictate their actions. There must be legitimate reasons behind virtuous agents
actions, and because of this, the virtuous person must follow the criteria established by Aristotle
and later developed by Hursthouse.
A moral agent’s reasoning behind his or her actions are developed through the four
conditions of virtue. These conditions work together in harmony to ensure that a virtuous agent
acts for the sake of virtue in itself. The four conditions for acting virtuously are: (1) to act
virtuously is do or perform a certain sort of action, (2) the agent acts for a reason, (3) the agent
acts for the right reason, and (4) the agent has the appropriate feelings or attitudes when he or she
acts.2
For example, Sarah is a virtuous person who is helping an elderly man cross the street. The
first condition is her helping the elderly man. The second condition is that she freely chooses to
assist the man because she saw that he could use some assistance. The third condition is that she
does this action because she genuinely wants to help and not because it is her duty to help. The
forth condition is that she performs this action because she cares and feels that it is the right thing
1
Rosalind, Hursthouse. On Virtue Ethics. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 121.
2
Rosalind Hursthouse. On Virtue Ethics. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 123-5.

4. 4
to do. In the construction of a moral theory, these conditions of virtue work together as a means
of ensuring that there are no ulterior motives behind a virtuous agent’s reasons for action. The
conditions of virtue are essential to the motivation of a moral agent.
Many ethical theories discuss and analyze the motivation behind a moral agent’s actions.
While some theories do not see the importance of taking moral motivation into consideration,
virtue ethicist’s have shown that moral motivation is an important component to the virtue ethics
theory as a whole. A perfectly virtuous agent, “when she acts virtuously, sets the standard for
‘moral motivation’, due to acting ‘because one thinks it’s right,’ etc….a standard against which
[society] asses[es] the extent to which the less than perfectly virtuous do the same.”3
A virtuous
agent is motivated to act good for good in itself. There is a standard of what it means to be
virtuous within society. A non-virtuous person may act good out of a desire to seen as a virtuous
person for self-gratification. Whereas the virtuous person will act good because he or she wants
to be a good person and help others who are in need. In modern day American society, it seems
that to be a virtuous person is to be a person who exhibits certain specific characteristics and who
lives a life in which they flourish as an individual. Flourishing in this instance means that the
virtuous person lives a life in which they have accomplished everything possible without taking
what they didn’t need from society. Should a member of society not adhere to the standard set by
the virtuous agents then they will not be counted as a moral agent.
To be morally motivated is to be an agent capable of rationality and reason. Meaning that
the agent can tell the difference between right and wrong. Rationality in the Aristotelian sense is
the ability to make a decision. A moral agent is motivated to be good. Moral motivation comes
from the agent’s own sense of character. An Aristotelian moral agent knows that to be “’morally
3
Rosalind Hursthouse. One Virtue Ethics. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999). 145.

5. 5
motivated’ is not solely a matter of acting, on particular occasion, for a special kind of reason, let
alone one that is ‘vitally different form other kinds of reasons’…but, primarily, of acting from
virtue-from a settled state of good character.”4
A virtuous person is one who is motivated to good
because it is in their character to do so. A virtuous person does not do good on certain occasions.
A virtuous person will always do their best to base their actions on what is the right thing to do in
certain circumstances. For instance, a virtuous person may have to tell a lie, either to spare
someone’s feelings or to protect someone from harm. Lying is not a virtuous thing to do, but if
the virtuous agent does so because they feel that it is the right thing to do at the time, they will do
it despite knowing that they will feel immense guilt because of it. It is because of these feeling of
guilt and dedication to rationality that the virtuous person may have a difficult time in making a
decision to kill someone or save someone in a moral dilemma scenario. A virtuous person must
have a lot of information when it comes to moral dilemmas in order to make the best decision
possible for the situation. A virtuous person is one who acts virtuously within the conditions of
virtue because they are motivated to be a good person. While virtue ethics can adequately
explain what makes someone a virtuous person, the theory fails to account for the immoral
agents of society, mainly amoralists and psychopaths.
What does it mean to be an amoralist? An amoralist is someone who is vastly different
from an average member of society, especially, the virtuous agent. What makes an amoralist
different from the rest of society is that “they see no reason at all to do what they thus take to be
morally required. In other words, amoralists make moral judgments without being motivated
accordingly, and without suffering from any sort of practical irrationality either.”5
There are a lot
4
Rosalind Hursthouse. On Virtue Ethics. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999). 123.
5
Michael Smith. The Moral Problem. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1994). 67.

6. 6
of issues regarding amoralists because psychologists and ethicists often wonder whether or not
the amoralist is a rational being who is cognitively different from the rest of society. Or if the
amoralist is simply suffering a psychological disorder, which affects their ability to be rational
and thus makes them not responsible for their actions. For the sake of argument, an amoralist is
simply someone who is rational and able to recognize moral worth, but only acts moral or
immoral so long at it benefits their desires.
Amoralists are rational beings who are capable of being virtuous persons, but do not
adhere to the conditions of virtue based off of their own selfish and indifferent design. An
amoralist, such as a sociopath or a psychopath is not an irrational being. To be irrational is to
accept that “irrational actions are those in which a [person] in some ways defeats [his/her] own
purposes, doing what is calculated to be disadvantageous or to frustrate [his/her ends].
Immorality does not necessarily involve any such thing.”6
An amoralist is not irrational because
his or her actions are purposeful. An amoralist is more likely to take a virtuous route to action in
comparison to the psychopath. For instance, a psychopath, like fictional character Dr. Hannibal
Lecter, is a rational being who is by no means virtuous.
Due to Hannibal’s ability for rationality, he is able to act virtuously and blend in with
society. But underneath this false persona, he is an immoral being who murders and eats people
because he thinks that they are lesser than he is. Hannibal is not irrational. He is a careful and
calculating in his actions in order to avoid be caught. His mutilations are a performance,
carefully thought out as a means of humiliating his victims after death while ensuring that they
die slowly and painfully. In one of his killings, Hannibal cut out a girl’s lungs while she was still
using them and then left her corpse mounted on the head of a stag. As an example, it is clear to
6
Philippa Foot. “Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives.” Cal Poly. (Accessed
March 15, 2014). http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~rgrazian/docs/courses/231/instruction/foot

7. 7
see that Hannibal is a rational being who is most definitely not moral in any sense. Psychopaths,
like Dr. Lecter are able to rationalize their behavior. For instance, in the NBC television
production of Hannibal, Dr. Lecter tells FBI profiler Will Graham “killing must feel good to God
too. He does it all the time. And after all, aren’t we created in his image?”7
This quote is an
example of an intelligent psychopath justifying the action of killing and rationalizing the reason
to do so. Therefore, amoralists, and specifically psychopaths, are not necessary irrational, more
often, there are completely rational and reasonable in their own way when they commit their
crimes. One idea of how to account for amoralists within the virtue ethics theory is the idea that
the amoralist does not possess a virtuous character trait.
The virtuous person will have good character traits and thus be capable of performing
virtuous actions. The immoral person will have bad character traits, or value vices, and while
they are still capable of performing virtues acts, they choose out of their own free will to not do
so. While amoralists tend to be bad people within society, they are still capable of doing good
because “although they pursue bad ends and characteristically do terrible things without a qualm,
and even with enjoyment, many nevertheless are capable of actions that (at least apparently) are
quite splendid, ones that…may be included to say, really call for courage, or honesty, or
generosity.”8
While a virtuous agent pursues goodness, a psychopath tends to pursue actions that
will have bad endings. Will Graham in Hannibal is a virtuous person. He uses his imagination to
help catch serial killers and bring them to justice. Hannibal on the other hand is an immoral
psychopath who does bad things, such as manipulate those around him as well as killing anyone
who gets in his way. However, he is capable of doing good things. For instance, Hannibal
becomes a father figure and is very protective of Abigail Hobbes, the daughter of a serial killer
7
Mads Mikkelsen. Hannibal: Amuse-Bouche. NBC. 2013.
8
Rosalind Hursthouse. On Virtue Ethics. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999). 146.

8. 8
and a victim of a violent crime herself. In the most recent season, he also kills several people in
order to stop Will Graham’s murder trial. These actions show that serial killers have the capacity
of portraying emotions, and even virtuous characteristics, the question of whether or not they
actual have the ability to feel these emotions the way that a virtuous person does is dependent on
the degree of psychopathology.
In accessing whether or not a person is capable of being virtuous, character traits are an
important factor. A psychopath is capable of portraying the characteristics of a virtuous person.
But these portrayals are nothing more than a veil used in order to blend in with society. The
psychopath’s character will “resemble the ideal virtuous agent much more closely than [does]
those of their contemporaries who were indifferent to the plight of any of the underprivileged
groups, let alone those who enjoyed exploiting their position.”9
The reason why psychopaths
tend to blend into society better than the average amoralist is because they have shown the
outside world a false persona. They tend to act like a virtuous agent, and even end up taking
positions of power such as surgeon or law enforcement. Hannibal for instance was an
accomplished surgeon who decided to use his skills and become a psychiatrist. However, unlike
an average virtuous agent who takes these positions to protect the innocent. The psychopath uses
their power and status within society to exploit the innocent and hide their evil desires. Hannibal
for instance uses his status as a means of getting inside the minds of the FBI to ensure that he is
not held responsible for his crimes. The issues with trying to include amoralists within a virtue
and/or agent centered ethical theory is that the behavior of an amoralist does not portray actual
morality and thus they cannot fall within the spectrum of determining the motivation behind
moral action.
9
Rosalind Hursthouse. On Virtue Ethics. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999). 148.

9. 9
A psychopath’s behavior is calculating and purposeful. Every action commands a
reaction in accordance to the will of the psychopath. The desire is the psychopath’s potentiality
of the actuality to commit and carry out a crime. An intelligent criminal psychopath, like a serial
killer’s behavior:
Demonstrates…that he does not in any real sense recognize the validity of moral
principles, or their applicability to his own person. Furthermore, an amoralist lacks
morality not in a sense that his morality is different from the morality of a society he lives
in, but in a sense that whatever action-guiding principles he might adopt, the do not
constitute a system of moral principles.”10
The psychopath, as an amoralist, recognizes the existence and importance of morality within any
given society. However, if moral conditioning does not adhere to the want and desires of a
psychopath, they will take action that benefits their goals. The psychopath simply does not care
about moral law and thus ignores the moral and does whatever he or she pleases. Psychopaths
have a gift of being able to use their understanding and recognition of morality as a means of
blending in with society.
For example, Dr. Hannibal Lecter is a man who knows how essential it is to blend in with
society if he wishes to continue to get away with his crimes. He is a psychiatrist and a friend. He
throws dinner parties and gives advice to those in need. Occasionally he is also a shoulder to cry
on. However, these behaviors are a facade of his true character. While he is capable of portraying
these virtuous characteristics, it does not necessarily mean that he can feel them. Psychopaths are
capable of rationalizing their actions and motivations. They value their own narcissism beyond
all other factors within society. While Dr. Hannibal Lecter is a fictional character, there are real
life examples of serial killers who simply cannot fall within the spectrum of a virtue ethics
10
Zavaliy, Andrei. 2008. "Absent, Full and Partial Responsibility of the Psychopaths." Journal
For The Theory Of Social Behaviour 38, no. 1: 87-103. Philosopher's Index, EBSCOhost
(accessed March 17, 2014).

10. 10
theory. Notorious serial killer Ted Bundy for instance, is a real life example of the rational
amoralist psychopath.
In the virtue ethics theory, the agent is capable of reason and rationality. A virtuous agent
values other people over their own self-interest desires. Ted Bundy, a rational amoralist, is by no
means a virtuous agent. He:
Prizes about all his own pleasure, as well as freedom from constraints, and, apparently,
finds nothing especially valuable in human rationality or human autonomy. The two sides
differ in their conceptions of what is valuable, of what is good and evil, and…this
difference may best be explained by postulating that the conclusions of Ted Bundy,
however, “honest” and conscientious”, rest on a mistaken premise.11
Ted Bundy is not an irrational person and therefore must be held responsible for his crimes. He
was executed on the basis of being cognitively aware of the crimes that he was committing.
Many theorists have argued on whether or not Bundy could be counted as a rational or irrational
agent when applying an ethical theory to his behavior.
The mistaken premise is that Bundy is an irrational person and thus cannot be counted in
the consideration and applicability of moral theories. However, Bundy was a rational person who
valued his own desires over human life. He murdered many innocent women for his own evil
wants, valuing immorality over morality. Those who knew him before he was charged with
murder described Bundy as a charming and honest man. Bundy did have the potentiality of being
a virtuous person, but he did not decide to take that position in society. All agents are born with
the potentiality of being moral or immoral, virtuous or duty-bound. A virtuous person will follow
the conditions of virtue when acting, while a non-virtuous person will not perform a virtuous act
for virtuous within itself. In fact, an amoralist will imitate virtuous behavior in order to blend in
11
ZAVALIY, ANDREI G. "On Rational Amoralists." Journal For The Theory Of Social
Behaviour 42.4 (2012): 365-384. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Mar. 2014. 374.

11. 11
with society, but they desire evil outcomes and are rational enough to understand that what they
are doing is wrong. Psychopaths are rational agents who have a very distinctive gift of blending
into society by following some type of ethical theory.
Those who met serial killer Ted Bundy stated that he was quiet charming. In NBC’s
Hannibal, Dr. Lecter is a very charming man. Most serial killers are above average intelligence
and tend to attract people to them, like a moth to a flame. According to various psychological
studies, “psychopaths can be quite charming and often exhibit a level of intelligence that is
significantly above average; they are able to achieve a high social status and to function
successfully in various social arrangements for extended periods of time.”12
It takes a long time
to successfully track down a psychopathic serial killer and link him or her to the crimes that he or
she has committed. It is difficult to take amoralists and psychopaths into account when
developing and applying a moral theory within society because they immoral agents are able to
blend in with their moral counterparts. Psychopaths are rational beings, as can be seen through
their ability to blend in with society. Therefore, the psychopath must be held responsible for his
or her immoral actions.
Motivation is an important component within the virtue ethics theory as a whole. The
question posed at the beginning of this paper was to question if an ethical theory like virtue
ethics can take amoralist and psychopaths into account. The answer is by no means simple, but it
is possible for the theory to take psychopaths into account when explaining and applying the
theory. A virtuous person is morally responsible for his or her actions. The psychopath is also
morally responsible for his or breaking down into two claims can see her actions and this: “the
12
Zavaliy, Andrei. 2008. "Absent, Full and Partial Responsibility of the Psychopaths." Journal
For The Theory Of Social Behaviour 38, no. 1: 87-103. Philosopher's Index, EBSCOhost
(accessed March 17, 2014). 87.

12. 12
assumption that most ordinary people are morality responsible for their intentional actions…and
the denial that the psychopaths are qualitatively different from the non-psychopaths.”13
Ordinary
people are held morally responsible for their intentional actions on a day-to-day basis. For
instance, a child who intentionally lies to his or her parents is held morally responsible by his or
her parents for lying. In court, the prosecutor relies on convincing the jury that the psychopath is
rational and thus must be held moral responsible for his or her evil intentions. When taking
amoralists and psychopaths into account in the virtue ethics theory, one can say that these agents
differ from the moral agent and it is the intentional of the psychopath to differ from a virtuous
person. The answer to whether or not an amoralist can be counted within the virtue ethics theory
relies on the description given by Aristotle.
In Aristotelian ethics, a moral agent is someone who is capable of rationality and reason.
The moral agent adheres to the conditions of virtue and is motivated to do good. Furthermore,
they differ from animals. According to Aristotle the agents:
Capable of action, introduced a category of a “brute” to refer to the most perverted kind
of agent whose wickedness goes “beyond the human level.” (N. Ethics, 1149a16-17).
Given his graphic description of the brutes, the impression is conveyed that a “brutish
type” is indeed a qualitatively different type of agent-a kind of a borderline case between
humans and animals.14
The psychopath is not quite human in the Aristotelian sense. In modern society, it can be said
that the psychopath is cognitively different from humans in that they possess a more animalistic
nature. When applying the amoralist and psychopath to an ethical theory like virtue ethics, one
can determine that the amoralist or psychopath is not the same as the typical virtuous agent, they
are an anomaly within society and thus there does not have to be a coherent description to justify
13
Zavaliy, Andrei. 2008. "Absent, Full and Partial Responsibility of the Psychopaths." Journal
For The Theory Of Social Behaviour 38, no. 1: 87-103. Philosopher's Index, EBSCOhost
(accessed March 17, 2014). 92.
14
See 11.

13. 13
their actions. There is no justification to psychopath’s actions, they are immoral and desire evil
over good. The virtuous agent is different from the psychopath in that they desire good and there
is a justification within their actions. A virtuous person, unlike the psychopath and amoralist,
lives through the condition of moral action and is motivated to be good.
There are three distinctive ethical theories that attempt to justify moral behavior within
society. These theories are deontology, utilitarianism and virtue ethics. All three of these theories
are unable to fully take the amoralist and psychopath into account when applying the theory to
society and justifying moral behavior. However, virtue ethics has the capability of explaining
why it is difficult to explain the amoralist and psychopath’s actions. Virtue ethicists hold the
agent responsible for his or her moral actions. There are four conditions required to an action to
be considered virtuous. The virtuous agent is motivated to be good for good in itself. The
amoralists and psychopaths on the other hand are rational beings who are motivated to do
whatever their desires yearn for. The amoralist and psychopath is a different type of agent and
thus cannot be accounted for within the virtue ethics theory in itself. Despite this fact, they are
still morally responsible for their intentional actions to do harm rather than good.

14. 14
Bibliography
Dr. Hannibal Lecter. Hannibal: Amuse-Bouche. Mads Mikkelsen. 2013: NBC Studios, Los
Angeles. DVD.
Foot, Phillipa. “Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives.” Cal Poly. (Accessed March
15, 2014). http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~rgrazian/docs/courses/231/instruction/foot
Hursthouse, Rosalind. On Virtue Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Smith, Michael. The Moral Problem. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1994.
Zavaliy, Andrei. 2008. "Absent, Full and Partial Responsibility of the Psychopaths." Journal For
The Theory Of Social Behaviour 38, no. 1: 87-103. Philosopher's Index, EBSCOhost
(accessed March 17, 2014).
ZAVALIY, ANDREI G. "On Rational Amoralists." Journal For The Theory Of Social
Behaviour 42.4 (2012): 365-384. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Mar. 2014.