Serial Killers vs. Political Killers
In your personal definition of good and evil, if you have one, are people like Ted Bundy worse than people like Adolf Hitler? Is the amount of people they are responsible for killing make them "more" evil to you? Does the fact Hitler or Stalin thought they were doing good make them less vile than serial killers?
Originally posted by Luminatus
In my mind a serial killer's usual mental issues should also absolve them of their crimes to some extent.
Least that's what I think.
Except that serial killers are in control of themselves and aware enough that what they are doing is wrong to avoid capture. Their mental issues would be pretty much the standard definition of "evil". Hitler's own issues were probably more severe than those of the average serial killer.
Of course how "bad" someone's problems are is just as subjective as what defines a "problem" in this case and how much it absolves one of murder, if at all.
But aren't serial killers "addicted" to murder? Hitler for instance didn't suffer a compulsion to ill people as far as I know. Someone like Bundy, who is the killer who made me think of this thread, was compelled to murder people because of his past. I've also heard, though I can't cite any examples, of killers who have actual physical defects in thei brain that keeps them from understanding how wrong their acts are.
From your posts you definitely seem to know more about psychology than me so whatever you say is probably right. I just am going off the bits and pieces I've picked up.
Hitler suffered from several mental illnesses.
Political killers have a much broader field of responsibility. It's difficult to say whether someone is better or worse, but their actions usually affect many more people. Assuming they are made by someone with power, and not the mayor of some hick-town.
Originally posted by LuminatusThats called Psychopathy and it's caused by environmental factors not some sort of defect in the brain. However it's only a word to describe a certain kind of person who through no fault of there own developed the traits recognized as Psychopathy. Though there are people who would argue these people are predisposed to develop in to this kind of person.
I've also heard, though I can't cite any examples, of killers who have actual physical defects in thei brain that keeps them from understanding how wrong their acts are.
Originally posted by Magee
Though there are people who would argue these people are predisposed to develop in to this kind of person.
EDIT: and to extrapolate, environmental factors are said to create a defecit in the brain, resulting in psychopathy.
Numbers is one factor. I would think intent is another. Also, means.
One could argue that Hitler acted to empower Germany; and that the concentration camps were the most efficient way to kill large numbers (millions) of the enemy.
On the other hand, the BTK killer -- while taking out far less people -- deliberately inflicted on them as much suffering as possible. He was looking to empower only himself; and efficiency was defined not by numbers but by degree of suffering.
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
What about economic killers like drug companies that make life saving drugs for some diseases available only to the rich so those that can't afford them die?
If people want to not die they should go make more money. Your line of thinking will send countries straight into Communism.
Political Killers in all honesty. They normally kill a lot more people firstly, and I mean, politicians are supposed to be people one can trust (obviously this isn't true they're all lying monsters). Serial Killers normally come out with bad mental conditions, (abused as children) but then again I suppose, like Adolf Hitler, there are many exceptions to this.
But no, in my opinion, Political Killers - just because they have that dangerous ability to gather others under their wing. You want to talk about Hitler, look at how many people who brainwashed to join the Nazi party...
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
What about economic killers like drug companies that make life saving drugs for some diseases available only to the rich so those that can't afford them die?
Drug Companies are just that, companies. Their goal is to make a profit. If there is no profit, there are no drugs.
And to the OP, obviously we all think of Hitler as one of the most evil men to ever exist because of the sheer number of people he murdered. In my opinion, a killer who kills for enjoyment or personal gain is worse than a killer that kills because they believe they are doing the right thing. Not that killing in any form is excusable, but thats just my two cents.
Originally posted by icu311Drugs can be developed, produced and distributed with public resources and personell with no profitting intent and with at least the same and probably superior efficiency than the corporate system can deliver.
Drug Companies are just that, companies. Their goal is to make a profit. If there is no profit, there are no drugs.
Search for profit cannot be accepted as the only value a private enterprise upholds within a society. Public interest must be taken into consideration and enforced upon them, if they do not care for it at all.
Re: Serial Killers vs. Political Killers
Originally posted by Luminatus
In your personal definition of good and evil, if you have one, are people like Ted Bundy worse than people like Adolf Hitler? Is the amount of people they are responsible for killing make them "more" evil to you? Does the fact Hitler or Stalin thought they were doing good make them less vile than serial killers?
Sheer numebrs count of course, but when people think of political killers their minds go to hitler and they think: evil ****, of course politically motivated killings are worse. Problem is that the values, institutions and social conditions most people treasure today - whatever they might be, even our nations - were forged and defended through political killings. So what makes one so revolting and the other so easy to ignore or justify? Nazis and stalinists would consider their actions legitimate for the greater good.
It is not simply the act of killing or the number of killings, it is its intent and the situations surrounding them that shape our subjective moral judgements of them.
I also believe serial killers provoke disgust or perplexity more easilly because their motivations are uncomprehensible to most people and their methods are cruel and gruesome. Most political killings on the other hand can at least be understood even if completelly rejected and condemned.
I'm not sure I'd consider the numbers in the matter a real factor at play here, as it's usually the means and not a question of "how" "evil" the person is that determines the extent of their wrongdoings. I'd say it's a matter of the intent behind the killings, and to that extent there usually isn't a huge difference in the mindframe of someone who's willing to kill in a general sense whether it's a small handful of people or millions.
I also wouldn't consider mental illness as some kind of excuse or legitimate explanation behind "evil" intentions and actions any more than I would their upbringing, physical makeup of their brain, being possessed by a demon or the deterministic forces that lead to them being the way they are. All explain why the person is the way they are, but the issue isn't the "why" in this case, but the "what" and the fact of the matter is that for whatever reason that person happens to be the individual that he is, and it's who he is that's being judged, not why he is that person.