If that were true, we'd all simply be psychopaths, the genes would have long since won. There are important reasons why humans are empathetic, have guilt, concern for others, etc. It is unlikely that psychopaths could ever form a civilization on their own, for instance; one could make a utilitarian argument in favor of behaving the proper way, but without the shortcut of having your brain simply wired to work that way it's going to be an uphill battle.

(Which goes back to one of my drums I beat here with some frequency, which is that while the rationality of humans is often overstated, so is their irrationality... many putatively irrational things like "guilt" or "empathy" in fact exist for reasons, or if you prefer, have significantly more positive effects when considered holistically than a naive analysis might indicate.)

Take stick and poke anthill so it gets rebuilt.

Defectors must be punished.

A lot of nice things in society depend on cooperating actors not taking advantage of each other. Psychopathy is defecting on society.

What you say is true only if you believe in amoral survival-of-the-fittest. Psychopaths are unconcerned with notions of truth, justice and fairness.

That may be the most efficient and logical way to treat them, but it doesn't mean they're "normal" in any sense of the word.

Keep in mind: if you don't know who the patsy is, you are the patsy.

That's exactly how they see it, too.

(I'm not trying to be pejorative. It would be my job to prove that you're objectively wrong, and I can't.)

I think psychopathy, like all of these disorders, has a spectrum. But if it's a natural condition, it doesn't deserve the moral weight affixed to it. Not all (natural) psychopaths do bad things, and most people who do bad things are not psychopaths.