Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Can one kill another human being and be of 'normal' mind?


I don't refer to cases of self-defence, or even provocation/euthanasia.

Only consider acts which would consitute murder, or at least aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring a murder. (Murder isn't applicable during war, but do consider wartime killings)

They needn't be direct, as obviously many killings are at the behest of another party (IE, you could consider the soldier, the commanding officer, and the government responsible for the conflict).

Here are some things people might like to consider. Sigh.

Sanity/insanity; 'normal'; opinions on the various types of killer/killing.


Or whatever on-topic angle interests you.

*edit*

While the definition of murder doesn't apply to killings during a war, do consider them. Don't, however, consider abortion to be murder, as it doesn't fit the purpose of the thread (as well as the definition of murder, incidentally).

Man, just throwing the word 'normal' in there opens a whole kettle of fish.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Man, just throwing the word 'normal' in there opens a whole kettle of fish.

Exactly. Let's define "normal," the rest will be relatively easy.

I feel that many murders are from many years...etc. of planning..thoughts of.........though there is that element of "Ah! I'm gonna kill you for that."...It's a thing not dwelt upon...more a breaking point, I think....snapping.

But where would someone throw in insanity?.....The laws that contribute to insanity have changed.....I think at one time, it was acceptable for a spouse to kill another...If the other was caught in an act....I thought the courts did favor that view, but not anymore.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Man, just throwing the word 'normal' in there opens a whole kettle of fish.

Or even a can of worms...

That was the element I thought would cause most disagreement.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I feel that many murders are from many years...etc. of planning..thoughts of.........though there is that element of "Ah! I'm gonna kill you for that."...It's a thing dwelt upon...more a breaking point, I think....snapping.

But where would someone throw in insanity?.....The laws that contribute to insanity have changed.....I think at one time, it was acceptable for a spouse to kill another...If the other was caught in an act....I thought the courts did favor that view, but not anymore.

If they are deemed insane, then....they're not sane.

I'm interested in the other cases.

Hey victor, perhaps if we use some of the worms from the can to catch a few fish from the kettle things might make more sense?

Who's to determine sane and insane them.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Who's to determine sane and insane them.

generally it's best left to the already confirmed sane people.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Hey victor, perhaps if we use some of the worms from the can to catch a few fish from the kettle things might make more sense?

Probably.

Debbie- the current understanding is that those ruled insane are not sane. The others are 'sane'. Insanity/sanity is an issue here, but don't worry about the legal side of it.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
generally it's best left to the already confirmed sane people. But many of them are not sane....or Confirmed in what way?...an still that doesn't make them sane..........I think we're gonna hear that word subjective again..

OH Victor...just saw your post...OK

I believe one can commit murder and clearly be of sane mind. It's not really a hard concept to embrace.

The only time I really question someone's sanity is when they give a rather odd (subjective, I'm aware) explanation for murder.

Eg: Someone (who's name I forget) killed a man and then ate his brain because he felt it was like consuming his soul.

The cannibalism isn't what I find odd, it's the fact that he did it because he obviously had some not normal qualities (for lack of a better term) that led him to be of the belief that he was consuming their souls.

People often use the argument of "How can they be sane?! They want to eat a human." To me, that's not insanity. Just an outlandish belief. It's eating your own species, which many other animals do. Of course, I'm not condoning the action of committing murder to satisfy your taste for human flesh, just that the taste for human flesh isn't insanity.

Another example of this would be Armin Meiwes. When investigated they didn't find any suggestions that he was insane by any means. Yet he is infamous because he advertised on the internet for a man aged between 18-30 to be WILLINGLY killed and eaten. He wasn't prepared to go out an murder at that point. He just made the conscious decision to eat human meat. Like people make the conscious decision to eat other odd animals killed against their will.

Though I've gone on a bit, the point I'm making is that even in the oddest cases, it isn't always a case of insanity. People do consciously make choices that seem outlandish, this does not make them insane. If I went out and stabbed a child, it doesn't make me insane. It means I decided to stab a child.

A common retort to this is: "Well if you wanted to stab a child in the first place, you're not right." False, clearly. It's just a choice, an outlandish and disturbing one? In my opinion, yes. Insanity? No.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
People often use the argument of "How can they be sane?! They want to eat a human." To me, that's not insanity. Just an outlandish belief.

I would hazard to guess that it is the motivation behind the belief as to whether or not why you would choose to eat a human or stab a child (the examples that you have given) would dictate that person's sanity or lack thereof.

Someone may very well just want to stab a child, or eat a human. As disturbing a concept as that is, it's a very real one.

People insist there MUST be some mentally unstable factor, but it's not necessarily the case.

"You don't just want to eat a human, or stab a child." Yes, in some cases you might. It happened with Armin Meiwes. That man was psycho-analysed out the ying yang and there was nothing wrong with him mentally. He decided he wanted to taste human flesh, he did so. It was a conscious, sane choice. He isn't insane.

Like when someone is at a restaurant and decides to eat octopus. It's a very odd choice of food, that doesn't make you insane though.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Someone may very well just want to stab a child, or eat a human. As disturbing a concept as that is, it's a very real one.

There is still an underlying motivation for wanting to do anything. If you are proposing that someone is causing harm 'just because', would not that make them a sociopath?


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Like when someone is at a restaurant and decides to eat octopus. It's a very odd choice of food, that doesn't make you insane though.

-AC

Comparing the rationality of desiring to eat an octopus at a restraunt (which depending on how it is done is very tasty and not odd at all) and the desire to eat a person might make a number of people on this site question your sanity or state of normality.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
There is still an underlying motivation for wanting to do anything. If you are proposing that someone is causing harm 'just because', would not that make them a sociopath?

No, because that's a personality disorder. I'm proposing that people who do outlandish things just because, might be doing them just because. With no mental illness or such. It's very possible and it has happened. Because of the nature of the crimes however, people fail to admit that this is a possibility and thereby tag the person insane, because of course there's no way someone would wanna do that.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Comparing the rationality of desiring to eat an octopus at a restraunt (which depending on how it is done is very tasty and not odd at all) and the desire to eat a person might make a number of people on this site question your sanity or state of normality.

No it doesn't at all, does it? Because let's think about it. When people are shocked by ANY kind of cannibalism, what is it that's shocking? The consumption of human by another human, right? Why would anybody wanna do that?!?!?! Here's why: Because they choose to eat human. That's it. That can be a perfectly realistic reason for cannibalism. The sooner people realise this, the better.

If a bear eats a human, why are people not as disgusted? If human consumption is of course the main source of disgust with cannibalism. When a man is killed an eaten by a bear, the main upset is life loss, not the fact that he was eaten. So why, when a human decides to harmlessly eat human meat, is it regarded as an insane act when it could very easily not be? Because it's a HUMAN doing it? What difference does it make? A bear eats human meat, a human eats human meat. You tell me in any realistic way, why the latter is more disgusting, wrong or even insane. Please.

If anything that would be more acceptable. It's a choice.

Like I said before, I'm not condoning killing someone to satisfy your need to eat human meat, or your curiousity. I'm saying that the consumption of human meat alone by another human, is as far from an insane, act as another animal eating a human.

So no, I don't think murder equals insanity by any means. I think it's a label that people who are unable to accept the horrors of life, attach to horrifying incidents to make it seem not normal.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm proposing that people who do outlandish things just because, might be doing them just because.

And that is where I disagree, there is motivation and intention behind each action you take. I believe there is no "just because".

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

So no, I don't think murder equals insanity by any means.
-AC

I do not necessarily believe that murder equals insanity, but I also cannot agree with the examples that you have posted behind your reasoning.

Yes, self-defense only though, because it is normal for a person to defend themselves.

From an evolutionary standpoint, one might start with the proposition that "sanity" is a state of mind which best enhances a person's survival, ie, getting along with one's environment, which includes one's social context, this also assuming that one's social context has (hold on to yer hats) an "appropriate moral compass."

Originally posted by KharmaDog
And that is where I disagree, there is motivation and intention behind each action you take. I believe there is no "just because".

Well then there's obviously no explaining it to you. Someone may very well say "I want to stab a person." "Why?" "I just do. I just feel like doing it." That is a very real possibility. The intent would be to kill, the motivation would be "Because I wanted to." People not being able to accept that is why the insanity tag is raised so often. Because people believe there is no possible way you could just decide to murder. You can, and it makes you no less sane.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I do not necessarily believe that murder equals insanity, but I also cannot agree with the examples that you have posted behind your reasoning.

Well then give me reasons to show me why you disagree with my examples, because they are perfectly explained. Or better yet just answer this one:

I am not insane, I think we can agree there. If I say to you now:

"I am curious about the taste of human meat and in the correct circumstances, would try it."

Would you, based on that piece of text, deem me insane or question my sanity?

-AC

If we're gonna introduce the element of motivation, here is my 2 cents worth...

The bottom-line for all motivation is the quest for power, power being defined as that which distances one from death terror. Everything any living being does--every move, every breath, every thought, however conscious or unconscious (mostly unconscious)--involves the fortification of life, biological life, and in humans' case, also egoic life.

Quest for power is not, by definition, bad. There just are terrible ways to do it. The "cheapest, easiest, most dramatic way" is by killing.

Enough with the human meat you skittish reprobate.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well then there's obviously no explaining it to you. Someone may very well say "I want to stab a person." "Why?" "I just do. I just feel like doing it." That is a very real possibility. The intent would be to kill, the motivation would be "Because I wanted to." -AC

Individuals who have little regard for the feeling and welfare of others in the pursuit to gratify their own desires are sociopaths. Now you say that that is merely a personality disorder. If a killer goes on trial as a sociopath, is he not questioned as to his sanity? Or at least normalcy?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well then give me reasons to show me why you disagree with my examples, because they are perfectly explained. Or better yet just answer this one:

I am not insane, I think we can agree there. If I say to you now:

"I am curious about the taste of human meat and in the correct circumstances, would try it."

Would you, based on that piece of text, deem me insane or question my sanity?-AC

I cannot agree or disagree as to your claims of sanity at this current juncture in time. As for the question:

If I say to you now:"I am curious about the taste of human meat and in the correct circumstances, would try it."Would you, based on that piece of text, deem me insane or question my sanity?

On that particular question I would consider you odd and maybe even weird, but I would not consider you insane. However , if you said I like to kill people and eat them because I think they taste yummy!" I would think that you are not firing on all cylinders.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Individuals who have little regard for the feeling and welfare of others in the pursuit to gratify their own desires are sociopaths. Now you say that that is merely a personality disorder. If a killer goes on trial as a sociopath, is he not questioned as to his sanity? Or at least normalcy?

Him being a sociopath still relies on him having a disorder though. This is what I am getting at.

People who have absolutely nothing wrong with them just making a conscious choice to do something. It's a very real possibility.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I cannot agree or disagree as to your claims of sanity at this current juncture in time. As for the question:

If I say to you now:"I am curious about the taste of human meat and in the correct circumstances, would try it."Would you, based on that piece of text, deem me insane or question my sanity?

On that particular question I would consider you odd and maybe even weird, but I would not consider you insane. However , if you said I like to kill people and eat them because I think they taste yummy!" I would think that you are not firing on all cylinders.

Ahh, so consumption of human meat or the desire to do so isn't insane, it's just an odd choice? This is what I said earlier and this is what you disagreed to. Thanks for clearing that up.

As I also said before, I don't condone satisfying your cannibalistic tastes via murder. Just suggesting that someone who does so, isn't necessarily insane.

I've used cannibalism a bit much to put my point across here, but my point is that people can easily commit an act with a sane mind.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Ahh, so consumption of human meat or the desire to do so isn't insane, it's just an odd choice?

AC

No, asking the question, "I am curious about the taste of human meat and in the correct circumstances, would try it." is not insane, it's just wierd. Killing someone just to find out what they taste like. That's insane.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
This is what I said earlier and this is what you disagreed to. Thanks for clearing that up.AC

You were doing so well in debating without trying to twist the words of others. Then you did that.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
You were doing so well in debating without trying to twist the words of others. Then you did that.

Nope, you disagreed that it's a choice. Then you agreed it was a choice, albeit an odd one. Either way, I'm going to get off cannibalism as it's not really part of the thread.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
No, asking the question, "I am curious about the taste of human meat and in the correct circumstances, would try it." is not insane, it's just wierd. Killing someone just to find out what they taste like. That's insane.

Is it? Or is it, like I proposed, just a very outlandish and illegal choice? We've already established that cannibalism in itself isn't insane.

So what makes the murderer insane? The act of murder?

What, to you, makes a murderer insane?

-AC

So by your definition a person can't be deemed insane if he has no mental disorder that can be "proved". I don't agree with this, yet I also think the insanity pledge is used in way to many cases.

When someone commits murder, there usually is a motive of some kind behind it, be it economic, revenge of some kind, mercy killing etc.
I don't think someone who kills for money to be perfectly normal, I'd say he's a sociopath.

If you kill someone "just because" (that's not a motive in my book), I'd say your insane. Even though it's a choice, the desire to kill someone for "the heck of it" isn't normal at all. To actually do it, and not just think it, makes you insane in my opinion.

This is of course subjective, but I'd say "normal" is what the general population feels/means/do etc. Thus what's normal now might not be in some years.

Originally posted by Ulven
So by your definition a person can't be deemed insane if he has no mental disorder that can be "proved". I don't agree with this, yet I also think the insanity pledge is used in way to many cases.

Of course a person can't be deemed insane if they aren't insane. What are you talking about? If someone has no provable or detectable mental disorder and has infact got the similar mentality of a "normal" person, of course they're not insane.

Originally posted by Ulven
When someone commits murder, there usually is a motive of some kind behind it, be it economic, revenge of some kind, mercy killing etc.
I don't think someone who kills for money to be perfectly normal, I'd say he's a sociopath.

Right. Let's go back to my original point of you and others leaving out a very possible reason. Because they want to, they just want to.

People often say "I feel like...." right? Random, out of NOWHERE urges. What if one of these was murder?

Originally posted by Ulven
If you kill someone "just because" (that's not a motive in my book), I'd say your insane. Even though it's a choice, the desire to kill someone for "the heck of it" isn't normal at all. To actually do it, and not just think it, makes you insane in my opinion.

Exactly, in your book. I'm not talking about your book. I'm talking about what is factually and realistically possible.

You say to do it makes you insane. Why though? Because you don't understand why they did it? You not agreeing with "for the heck of it", you not being able to grasp that, doesn't mean the man's reason and motive are any less true or sane.

Originally posted by Ulven
This is of course subjective, but I'd say "normal" is what the general population feels/means/do etc. Thus what's normal now might not be in some years.

And there you have it. Since when did a general view mean true view?

-AC

Gee settle down

I might have written a bit carelessly in my post. I meant that a person can be insane, even though we might not know about it. Just because we can't detect something doesn't mean it can't be.

My opinion (yes mine, it's as good as yours) is that if someone kills without reason, that's an insane act. And an act of such strong consequences makes him insane. I know perfectly well that it can be a random action/choice, however people that's sane simply don't do it. I'm not debating the fact that these people can be otherwise intelligent/dumb/"normal" etc. and/or have some small quirks.

If a person commits suicide just because he want to do it (even though he has a good life and no real reason to kill himself), would that be sane? If your answer to this is yes, then we simply don't agree.

I guess the conflict is based around what "insanity" actually is. What is insane by mainstream definitions is not necessarily a disorder of the mind, but may simply be a different way of being that is judged as unacceptable on social or cultural grounds. Generally, I agree with this definition, and you don't I guess.

And I never said that general view equals true view...I do however say that what's normal and not will vary from place to place and as time goes by, and as we gain more knowledge about the human mind.

Originally posted by Ulven
Gee settle down

I might have written a bit carelessly in my post. I meant that a person can be insane, even though we might not know about it. Just because we can't detect something doesn't mean it can't be.

Perfectly settled. No settling down needed .

That's automatically making excuses though. If it's not detectable by all the psychological methods that the world's best psychological detectives and doctors go to, chances are that it's not there.

Originally posted by Ulven
My opinion (yes mine, it's as good as yours) is that if someone kills without reason, that's an insane act. And an act of such strong consequences makes him insane. I know perfectly well that it can be a random action/choice, however people that's sane simply don't do it. I'm not debating the fact that these people can be otherwise intelligent/dumb/"normal" etc. and/or have some small quirks.

Why state that yours is as good as mine? That depends what prior knowledge you have and what you are basing it on. You're equally entitled to an opinion, this doesn't mean it's equally right.

Secondly, why does it make him insane? You are falling into my point. "People simply don't do it." If that's all you have got, then it's better not to make the claim. If you cannot say why it's insane, why it makes the murderer insane, don't say "It just does."

Maybe he doesn't care about the consequences. That doesn't equate to insanity.

Originally posted by Ulven
If a person commits suicide just because he want to do it (even though he has a good life and no real reason to kill himself), would that be sane? If your answer to this is yes, then we simply don't agree.

You think suicide by choice is insanity? Then I question the rest of your opinions on this issue. It's a choice brought on by a state of mind, yes. That state of mind needn't be insanity though.

Originally posted by Ulven
I guess the conflict is based around what "insanity" actually is. What is insane by mainstream definitions is not necessarily a disorder of the mind, but may simply be a different way of being that is judged as unacceptable on social or cultural grounds. Generally, I agree with this definition, and you don't I guess.

What? I am the one proposing that insanity is just a label often attached as a reason for someone DOING something that is judged as socially unacceptable. Where did you get the idea that you pioneer this view and I disagree with it?

Originally posted by Ulven
And I never said that general view equals true view...I do however say that what's normal and not will vary from place to place and as time goes by, and as we gain more knowledge about the human mind.

Right, and as I said, you're not really refuting my points.

-AC

Interesting topic...May I venture something in a similar flavour to consider? Thank you.

Is revenge - being the ultimate physical reaction to the mental anguish of jealousy - the act of a sane mind?

I believe so, you don't have to be insane to be jealous.

-AC

I made a bit of a fart with my word choice in that last ol' post, but I think it still works if I follow with this train-of-thought...

Your partner betrays you through an act of infidelity.
You feel fervently jealous in regards to his/her indiscretion.
You seek to satisfy the beast within by destroying the object(s) that fueled your animosity.

Is this of sound mind, or are you loco, ese?

If the answer is 'yes, it's of sound mind', then aren't we saying that someone can be utterly lacking in rationality, yet still be considered 'sane'?

Obviously, this hypothetical situation is an extreme, but indulge me...

Lacking rationality doesn't equate to you being insane though. It's not insanity. It's just focusing on an emotion which is perfectly understandable.

Claiming to eat men's brains because it makes you fill up with souls however, suggests to me that they are a bit loco.

-AC

But if you are lacking in sense, are you not also lacking in sanity?

Take women during the week before their period, for example...they lack all rationale, so could be classified as 'temporarily insane'.

Many perpetrators of crimes of passion manage to evade the maximum sentence by pleading this way. Reminds me a little of 'Catch-22', although this one seems to work...

I personally don't see the logic or rationale in labelling something insanity just because there are chemical reasons for them functioning differently. Or emotional.

Not mental, which is what sanity/insanity refers to.

-AC

Sanity also refers to 'behviour', which is influenced by emotion. Furthermore, 'emotions' are the physical representations of your mental state. This is why I find it 'murder and sanity' a very interesting topic.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
LClaiming to eat men's brains because it makes you fill up with souls however, suggests to me that they are a bit loco.

-AC

I am beginning to think that you have a fetish thing happening here.

Yeah, I eat human brains. Got a problem?

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Sanity also refers to 'behviour', which is influenced by emotion. Furthermore, 'emotions' are the physical representations of your mental state. This is why I find it 'murder and sanity' a very interesting topic.

Someone who is clinically insane and acting upon their thoughts is a lot different than someone clinically jealous acting upon their emotions.

Since clinically jealous doesn't exist really, that leads me to the conclusion that someone acting on an actually unstable mind, unable to make sensible choices due to a disorder, is not the same as someone making the conscious choice to act upon an emotion brought about by a specific situation.

An insane person is always insane. A jealous person isn't always jealous.

-AC

whats with all the philosophy debates?

most insane people have one thing in common: they think they're perfectly sane. so a choice to eat human flesh/kill children etc would seem like a rational choice to them, perhaps even an imperitave. but you cant say that because from their perception they are sane, that makes them sane.

first off what is the 'sane' we are debating? it seems there are so many definitions--(here are three seperate sources)

1-sane: mentally sound; specifically : able to understand one's actions and distinguish right from wrong

2-sane: Of sound mind; mentally healthy.

3-sane: able to anticipate and appraise the effect of one's actions

it seems AC is arguing for the third definition listed, in which case i must agree. someone murders a person and understands the very thing that they did, chose to do it, and that they will be tried and convicted if caught. but thats one definition, and im not sure if its specific enough. legally its spot on as this is how the court of law recognises the term when applying it to a case.

but then we have to address morality. (cue the endless 'morals dont really exist' debate ) knowing the difference between 'right and wrong'.
if someone is willing to kill 'just because' then they must lack the capacity to be mentally sound in a moral sense. MORAL, not legal...just making that clear.
the very action of doing something like that either means:

1-they did it 'just because', but they dont comprehend that it was wrong
2-they did it, knowing it was wrong but just didnt give a shit
3-they did it, knowing it was wrong, but they could not control their actions, however understanding of the reprocussions

to my understanding, all these would not classify someone as incompitent in a court, but the purpose of such a study for a case is only determine one thing: did they understand what they were doing, and thus should they face full punishment. nothing more.

so once again we have a blending of two definitions which is obviously going to lead to an endless wasted debate unless its addressed.

Originally posted by PVS
whats with all the philosophy debates?

I wasn't thinking of it so much in the philosophical sense, more in the sense of a definition of sanity which can be actually applied, but which may differ from our current conceptions of that phenomenon.

Originally posted by PVS

first off what is the 'sane' we are debating? it seems there are so many definitions--(here are three seperate sources)

1-sane: mentally sound; specifically : able to understand one's actions and distinguish right from wrong

2-sane: Of sound mind; mentally healthy.

3-sane: able to anticipate and appraise the effect of one's actions

I think those can easily meld into one concept.


Originally posted by PVS

but then we have to address morality. (cue the endless 'morals dont really exist' debate ) knowing the difference between 'right and wrong'.
if someone is willing to kill 'just because' then they must lack the capacity to be mentally sound in a moral sense. MORAL, not legal...just making that clear.



I think we can sidestep the 'morals' debate by concluding that the action of murder is immoral. Sanity can still be looked at objectively in the light of being immoral, because you can certainly be immoral and sane.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I wasn't thinking of it so much in the philosophical sense, more in the sense of a definition of sanity which can be actually applied, but which may differ from our current conceptions of that phenomenon.

im not saying you intended it to be a philosophy debate, but it seems to have been heading in that direction since the essence of the topic is:

-what is sanity/insanity?



Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I think we can sidestep the 'morals' debate by concluding that the action of murder is immoral. Sanity can still be looked at objectively in the light of being immoral, because you can certainly be immoral and sane.

but part of the (one) definition of sanity is to be mentally sound. if developed in the wrong conditions, be it an abusive environment, couldnt a person be considered to be mentally unsound? i mean, its not black and white. you dont have to be stark raving mad, but perhaps just screwed up enough to not truley understand morality.

someone can acknowledge the definition, and acknowledge that society forbids it, but many times the criminal is of the mindset that society's morals are nonexistant. just some abstract concept everyone made up and that they dont agree with/care about...or just flatout reject and hate.

what im getting at is most times when a murder is commited there is no thought of morality...PERSONAL morality. or else the murder would not be commited in the first place.

in many killings, including those of war, a person is conditioned to kill. in order to do this, morals have to be lost, either through dehumanising the enemy/victim or the convincing that its all for a greater good.

in the case of the military, its a matter of conditioning. but i've always believed that such conditioning is a kind of intitution-induced insanity. meaning simply flipping around morals and convincing people that killing is ok. many times we read/watch/hear in the news of how discharged soldiers are not able to get out of this mindset, and snap at home. they are labeled as 'insane'...why?

Originally posted by PVS
im not saying you intended it to be a philosophy debate, but it seems to have been heading in that direction since the essence of the topic is:

-what is sanity/insanity?

It might do. I was thinking of it as an identifiable condition though, just open to speculation. I see what you are saying though.




Originally posted by PVS



but part of the (one) definition of sanity is to be mentally sound. if developed in the wrong conditions, be it an abusive environment, couldnt a person be considered to be mentally unsound? i mean, its not black and white. you dont have to be stark raving mad, but perhaps just screwed up enough to not truley understand morality.

someone can acknowledge the definition, and acknowledge that society forbids it, but many times the criminal is of the mindset that society's morals are nonexistant. just some abstract concept everyone made up and that they dont agree with/care about...or just flatout reject and hate.

what im getting at is most times when a murder is commited there is no thought of morality...PERSONAL morality. or else the murder would not be commited in the first place.

in many killings, including those of war, a person is conditioned to kill. in order to do this, morals have to be lost, either through dehumanising the enemy/victim or the convincing that its all for a greater good.

in the case of the military, its a matter of conditioning. but i've always believed that such conditioning is a kind of intitution-induced insanity. meaning simply flipping around morals and convincing people that killing is ok. many times we read/watch/hear in the news of how discharged soldiers are not able to get out of this mindset, and snap at home. they are labeled as 'insane'...why?

So for you, would the absence of normative moral values indicate the presence of insanity?

for me? i think sanity is such an abstract concept that when you really think about it, we are all insane. i mean, if there is one ideal mental state that is considered 'sane' as imperfect humans we must all somehow deviate from that to some degree.

and as for the point of a soldier killing, and the failure to deprogram the occasional soldier before their discharge resulting in carnage at home, im just pointing out society's hypocritical view of 'sanity'.

Interesting. I was thinking a lot about the military aspect when I made the thread.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Interesting. I was thinking a lot about the military aspect when I made the thread.

Years ago I had a long conversation with a friend's father about his tours in vietnam. As a Mohawk living in Canada, he decided to go to Vietnam and signed up in the American military. I never had the audacity to ask him why he signed up, but I remember quite abit of what he told me.

He told me that it was often he or a black soldier who was made to walk point. He told me that he was more afraid of dying from a snake bite than a bullet and saw more than one friend die like that.

And he said, that at the time of a fire-fight, that he seemed to almost disassociate himself with everything but the experience and what he had to do. It seems his actions were dictated more by obligation and survival than to personal or culturally held morals.

As for sanity, I think that is how he coped sanely in an insane situation.

Is that something similar as to what you were thinking VVD?

but in doing so, he had to let go of his sense of right and wrong, or rather reinvent it. so would that not be temporary insanity?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Years ago I had a long conversation with a friend's father about his tours in vietnam. As a Mohawk living in Canada, he decided to go to Vietnam and signed up in the American military. I never had the audacity to ask him why he signed up, but I remember quite abit of what he told me.

He told me that it was often he or a black soldier who was made to walk point. He told me that he was more afraid of dying from a snake bite than a bullet and saw more than one friend die like that.

And he said, that at the time of a fire-fight, that he seemed to almost disassociate himself with everything but the experience and what he had to do. It seems his actions were dictated more by obligation and survival than to personal or culturally held morals.

As for sanity, I think that is how he coped sanely in an insane situation.

Is that something similar as to what you were thinking VVD?

Yeah, I was thinking about those kind of issues.

There's an interesting psychological study that some of you may be aware of, by Stanley Milgram.

He asked volunteers to administer electric shocks of increasing voltage to another person, despite their screams and eventual 'death', simply because of the situation in which they were placed (IE a 'lab', with a man in a white coat- although of indeterminate occupation- giving such orders).

Originally posted by PVS
but in doing so, he had to let go of his sense of right and wrong, or rather reinvent it. so would that not be temporary insanity?

But if you are aware that that is what you are doing, how can it be insane?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Yeah, I was thinking about those kind of issues.

There's an interesting psychological study that some of you may be aware of, by Stanley Milgram.

He asked volunteers to administer electric shocks of increasing voltage to another person, despite their screams and eventual 'death', simply because of the situation in which they were placed (IE a 'lab', with a man in a white coat- although of indeterminate occupation- giving such orders).

I was also interested in how during world war 2 it was discovered that many soldiers would not shoot at the enemy, so, after ww2 the military changed their rifle targets form the traditional circular bullseye pattern to that of a human silhouette.

It seems that during vietnam, many more soldiers were likely to aim and fire their weapons at human targets than ever before.

It is interesting to think how that little bit of reprogramming made shooting at another more acceptable. I am not sure as to it's sanity/insanity implications as pertaining to this thread, just thought it might be interesting fodder for you to extrapolate on.

im referring to this definition: 1-sane: mentally sound; specifically : able to understand one's actions and distinguish right from wrong

if you are conditioned to alter your perception of right or wrong, what seperates your mentallity from that of the criminally insane? even if it is temporary.

Originally posted by PVS
im referring to this definition: 1-sane: mentally sound; specifically : able to understand one's actions and distinguish right from wrong

if you are conditioned to alter your perception of right or wrong, what seperates your mentallity from that of the criminally insane? even if it is temporary.

I see what you are saying.

Temporary insanity we needn't worry about, because legally it would be manslaughter due to diminished responsibility.


It's certainly interesting to think that if morals are altered, the conception of sanity is altered- especially as morals are beliefs, while insanity is held to be a disease of the mind.

Murder does not necessarily preclude insanity.

Therefor, you can be a murderer and be totally sane. The difference is you'd be evil.....but, still sane.

How do you deduce that anyone who can't tell right from wrong is insane?

Many people think the invasion of Iraq was right. Insanity? No.

-AC