Murder and sanity

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.

[edit] 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