Murder and sanity

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
[B]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 [B]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. [/B]

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.

Here are my 50 ore (yep, Danish coin) on the matter…
There are several points worth addressing: I may not kill someone in an act of self-defence, but let’s say I’m being harassed daily by someone who is treating to murder me. I can’t prove it, but I strongly feel my life is in danger.
Would killing the harasser be murder? Grey area… Maybe I am insane?

Soldiers returning home after being in the lien of fire often suffer severe trauma or mental problems like depressions. Obviously killing other human beings is not “in our nature” (yeah, yeah, what is that… but accept the concept, please.).

So what makes someone commit murder? There are hitmen and money and the people ordering a killing, but not actually committing the act. Are they insane as well.

I suppose I lean towards the viewpoint, that anyone who commits murder in the western world (not accidental manslaughter or self-defence) are borderline sociopaths. You don’t need to fight over food here, or shelter. We’re a sociable species, that relies on others of our kind for survival. But circumstances CAN push us out over the limit of sanity – it doesn’t matter if a murder is carefully planned, as soon as you’re no longer able to tell right from wrong, and are not yourself in any danger when you commit a murder, you’re insane.

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

AC> Ah, I should have written morally right and wrong.
As in, murder is morally wrong (which btw makes the death-penalty one of the most hypocritical punishments in existence).
The invasion of Iraq were by SOME considered the right course of action, be it to ensure oil for the US, or to remove Hussein from power. And some who considered the invasion a right course of action were LIED to and/or manipulated (as in – why did 60% of the US population think Hussein was involved in 9/11?).

But hey: I’m not one to claim politicians are SANE! The kind of power-hunger and greed present there, along with fanaticism is not making the world a safer place to be. And they way some of them react when caught lying or what have you is childish and immature!