Murder and sanity

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.