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

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?

Obviously sheer numbers makes people like Hitler worse.

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.

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 Luminatus
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. Thats 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.

Originally posted by Magee
Though there are people who would argue these people are predisposed to develop in to this kind of person.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19825261?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

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.

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?

They're the worst, they'd let a million people die just to make a few bucks.

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 Symmetric Chaos
If people want to not die they should go make more money. Your line of thinking will send countries straight into Communism. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, i find it unfortunate that you weren't born in Africa HIV positive.

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 icu311
Drug Companies are just that, companies. Their goal is to make a profit. If there is no profit, there are no drugs.

Drugs 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.

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.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If people want to not die they should go make more money. Your line of thinking will send countries straight into Communism. Yeah, those stupid poor people. It's their own ****ing fault they're poor and not rich after all. They just don't want it bad enough

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.

political because people in numbers praise some of them

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.

banks and politicans pay what they stole, or they should criminally prosecute the people responsible. I, for one, would prefer to see these people go to jail (all of them, even though it will mean letting drug dealers and murderers out early, to make room for the influx people

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?

They were both evil but I am not sure if that would make them a serial killer.

This thread touches on certain psychological issues. For those who don't know, a personality disorder is a psychological issue formulated between birth and five or six years old causing pathological and abnormal behaviors. The difference between this and a mental disorder is that mental disorders have physical and/or chemical causes and are therefore, easier to treat or cure whereas personality disorders are generally learned and are difficult if not impossible to treat.
People with different personality disorders tend to excel in careers where their deficiencies are seen as assets, the example here being antisocial personality disorder wherein people who have trouble with empathy, sympathy, and in extreme cases display no conscience and sadism (what would be termed a sociopath, psychopath, or from a biologist's view, and intra-species predator) tend to excel in cutthroat industries such as business, banking, and politics. One of the problems other than identifying these people (estimated to be 5-10% of the population) is that they defy justice. Lock them up punitively and they'll simply try harder to stay out of prison or commit their crimes from within, try to rehabilitate them with therapy and they'll just become better liars and manipulators.
From that standpoint, there's no difference between "serial killers", "political killers", or even "financial killers". The crimes are all morally equivalent since the motivation is always some variation on a compulsion to fulfill all desires and/or hurt other people. What determines severity should be scope, not the nature of the crime. Ted Bundy killed over 30 people. Hitler was responsible for 50 million deaths. Charles Keating and Ken Lay robbed and ruined millions. Is there really a difference if the motive and the misery is the same?

Originally posted by 753
Yeah, those stupid poor people. It's their own ****ing fault they're poor and not rich after all. They just don't want it bad enough

You are really Evil.. hay God hay over here. I found another fallen one I will pray to you Oh God that you take all this ones money and leave her homeless

Lol so much sarcasm detection fail in this thread.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
This thread touches on certain psychological issues. For those who don't know, a personality disorder is a psychological issue formulated between birth and five or six years old causing pathological and abnormal behaviors. The difference between this and a mental disorder is that mental disorders have physical and/or chemical causes and are therefore, easier to treat or cure whereas personality disorders are generally learned and are difficult if not impossible to treat.
People with different personality disorders tend to excel in careers where their deficiencies are seen as assets, the example here being antisocial personality disorder wherein people who have trouble with empathy, sympathy, and in extreme cases display no conscience and sadism (what would be termed a sociopath, psychopath, or from a biologist's view, and intra-species predator) tend to excel in cutthroat industries such as business, banking, and politics. One of the problems other than identifying these people (estimated to be 5-10% of the population) is that they defy justice. Lock them up punitively and they'll simply try harder to stay out of prison or commit their crimes from within, try to rehabilitate them with therapy and they'll just become better liars and manipulators.
From that standpoint, there's no difference between "serial killers", "political killers", or even "financial killers". The crimes are all morally equivalent since the motivation is always some variation on a compulsion to fulfill all desires and/or hurt other people. What determines severity should be scope, not the nature of the crime. Ted Bundy killed over 30 people. Hitler was responsible for 50 million deaths. Charles Keating and Ken Lay robbed and ruined millions. Is there really a difference if the motive and the misery is the same?

So are you telling me that Barack Obama is equivalent to a Serial Killer?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
This thread touches on certain psychological issues. For those who don't know, a personality disorder is a psychological issue formulated between birth and five or six years old causing pathological and abnormal behaviors. The difference between this and a mental disorder is that mental disorders have physical and/or chemical causes and are therefore, easier to treat or cure whereas personality disorders are generally learned and are difficult if not impossible to treat.
People with different personality disorders tend to excel in careers where their deficiencies are seen as assets, the example here being antisocial personality disorder wherein people who have trouble with empathy, sympathy, and in extreme cases display no conscience and sadism (what would be termed a sociopath, psychopath, or from a biologist's view, and intra-species predator) tend to excel in cutthroat industries such as business, banking, and politics. One of the problems other than identifying these people (estimated to be 5-10% of the population) is that they defy justice. Lock them up punitively and they'll simply try harder to stay out of prison or commit their crimes from within, try to rehabilitate them with therapy and they'll just become better liars and manipulators.
From that standpoint, there's no difference between "serial killers", "political killers", or even "financial killers". The crimes are all morally equivalent since the motivation is always some variation on a compulsion to fulfill all desires and/or hurt other people. What determines severity should be scope, not the nature of the crime. Ted Bundy killed over 30 people. Hitler was responsible for 50 million deaths. Charles Keating and Ken Lay robbed and ruined millions. Is there really a difference if the motive and the misery is the same?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So are you telling me that Barack Obama is equivalent to a Serial Killer?
Sounds good, Fox News will want an interview with you now.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So are you telling me that Barack Obama is equivalent to a Serial Killer?


Manson like

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Sounds good, Fox News will want an interview with you now.

I hope not, but if it has to be, then please let the interview be with Megyn Kelly.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Manson like

Marilyn?

Nope.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Nope.

Really? Life is gray, not black or white.

Obama is pretty gray but what are you referring to?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Obama is pretty gray but what are you referring to?

I was asking Darth Jello a question. He seemed to be claiming that all politicians are equivalent to Serial Killers.

I wouldn't go as far as saying all. Bold statement.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
I wouldn't go as far as saying all. Bold statement.

All people manifest the ten worlds. That means that no one is good or evil.

Whatever you say breh

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Whatever you say breh

Let me guess, you have no idea what I just said.

The 10 spirit relms of buddhism



Animality maybe?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
The 10 spirit relms of buddhism



Animality maybe?

OK, good, and Animality would be my guess too. However, under the principle of 3000 realms in one moment, all of the 10 worlds are found within each world. So were a Serial Killer is finding victims to dominate, this person is also in the world of Hell or Anger. A "Political Killer" maybe also in the world of Bodhisattva. This would be someone like President Roosevelt in WWII. There were a lot of people who died because of the decisions he made, but he was trying to save far more lives in the process.

It is difficult to guess what the true motivation of politicians. There have been politicians who would equate to a Serial Killer, in the past. Hitler is the first one to come to mind. However, just because people die as a result of the decisions made by a politician, does not mean that politician is equal to a serial killer.

A reason why I stated Obama is Manson like, as in Charles Manson. Get others to do the killing for you. Is Manson a serial killer?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
A reason why I stated Obama is Manson like, as in Charles Manson. Get others to do the killing for you. Is Manson a serial killer?

Hmmmmm, yes, if Obama's intent was evil, then his action will also be evil. People have died under the leadership of Obama, but I don't think his actions have been evil.

BTW I thought you were just being a smart ass, but now I see your point.

I have no idea about the true intentions of whats going on in the white house but regardless, there are many many innocent people dying from Obamas bombs. No question about it but they still continue. All without a declaration of war since WWII. A war the american people and congress decided was just.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
I have no idea about the true intentions of whats going on in the white house but regardless, there are many many innocent people dying from Obamas bombs. No question about it but they still continue. All without a declaration of war since WWII. A war the american people and congress decided was just.

Ya, I think it is a product of restricted war. The paradox is that more people die from restricted war then unrestricted war. It would be best to not have any war at all, but that is not how our society works. That is a global problem, not just America.

Indeed.

Indeed

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Indeed


##@%^&$%!!

Lol. But no I agree. I usually use Indeed or Agreed because I like keeping small. Kinda like when I wear sweat pants.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Lol. But no I agree. I usually use Indeed or Agreed because I like keeping small. Kinda like when I wear sweat pants.

I kind of figured that, but I was thought it was funny.

.

To give the most nauseatingly fence-sitting answer I can muster: they're just different. Serial killing is generally a selfish act, certainly, and rarely will a serial killer believe good comes of their actions.

Meanwhile, a politicians motives are far harder to quantify. The kind of crass utilitarian calculation that makes people say 'politicians are worse' is nonsense. If your only criterion is that a politician caused more deaths, there are serious issues. Especially, for instance, with those who'll call someone like Bush a murderer while we have absolutely no idea how many might have died under Saddam Hussein in the last ten years, and also it's almost impossible to know what Bush believed the outcome of an invasion of Iraq would be. The consequences of a serial killers' actions are easy to calculate; it's virtually impossible for a politician, certainly beforehand, usually afterwards too...

Maybe that means the only logical policy is cynical realpolitik, as that way you at least hope to create at least some benefit for your own people, while assuming bad shit would happen to others whatever you do...

Perhaps the issue is that there must be a distinction between 'political killers' who authorise out-and-out murder (Hitler) and those who initiate wars, in which the variables are so great that they cannot be fully judged on the consequences either way, and to some extent intention must be considered in greater depth...

The whole matter is mind-bogglingly complex. To compare 'ordinary' murderers to political ones muddies the waters even further, when already comparing two politicians responsible for killings is nigh-on impossible, with people killing for so many different reasons: resources, or racial purity, or just to maintain power, or to prevent greater killing, etc...

So I take it, most here don't view good and evil as subjective? Killing and torturing is viewed as evil by most here, right?

In another board the serial rape, torture and killing of minors was considered to be subjective whether it was evil, which surprised me, considering the board.

Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
So I take it, most here don't view good and evil as subjective? Killing and torturing is viewed as evil by most here, right?

In another board the serial rape, torture and killing of minors was considered to be subjective whether it was evil, which surprised me, considering the board.

Killing is not evil. It maybe good to kill; for example, Hitler. If someone had killed him before he did his great evil, then many people would have been saved.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Killing is not evil. It maybe good to kill; for example, Hitler. If someone had killed him before he did his great evil, then many people would have been saved. but you consider what hitler did evil. Some would say it is good or open to interpretation.

Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
but you consider what hitler did evil. Some would say it is good or open to interpretation.

As a Buddhist, I am concerned with the happiness of others. I must view it as evil. You should question those who you are talking about.