The Line between Evil and Insanity

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Not at all. Its like waterboarding. Its only a crime if someone else does it. Otherwise, its just the pursuit of truth, justice and liberty [aka happiness].

Similarly, the man is only insane if other people say he is. He makes perfect sense to his own mind.

Its funny I was watching a Noam Chomsky interview on U.S foreign policy where he made the exact statement

" Its only a crime if someone else does it."

but let us not digress.

 

[S.A.M.]

Well if you look at the history of laws, what is insanity and what is evil? There is a deep desire to define human actions as "normal" and "abnormal". To see those who commit acts of horrendous violence as "not one of us".

But history tells that there is no normal. The only normal people are the ones you don't really know. So what do we achieve by defining limits of normality and assigning standards of self awareness, remorse or the ability to distinguish between right or wrong?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Well the one who commits horrendous acts have veered off of what the majority would consider the norm only if it places community at risk. For example you could be a complete eccentric, wear strange clothes, make strange remarks in public, dip the tea into the saucer and drink from it or whatever but society generally doesn't attempt to isolate a person unless it is threatening safety, general morality or becomes a public nuisance.

 

[Stryder]

Theres worse Evil in the world, like those that sit on couches pointing at this minority or that country, complain, bitch, whine and otherwise act up while doing absolutely sod all to aid any given situation. (Apathy is by all means the worst blight) Such "Sofa Hitler's" really should consider perhaps calming down from their obsessions and maybe trying to look towards solving a common problem as a goal rather than speculating, conspiring or suffering heavy dose's of paranoia.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

What's a 'sofa hitler'?:bugeye:

 

[Stryder]

It's a guy that sits there, states how the world should be run with all totalitarian authority of someone on a sofa. (They aren't very nice people, they can never get their way in life, they jump queues and never say please or thankyou. )

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

What post resembles that of a sofa hitler? Otherwise it seems out of context if you know what I mean.

 

[Randwolf]

Well if you look at the history of laws, what is insanity and what is evil?

Varies from time to time and place to place. However, most societies have an implicit, if not explicit, definition of insanity. This is reflected in the rule of law, as well as a more banal definition in the mind of the common man. Point is, at anytime, in anyplace, society has a "common" concept of what is "insane". Evil, on the other hand, tends to be much more subjective, does not usually enter into the rule of law (at least modern law), and is often heavily influenced by religious convictions. Nonetheless, your point (I think) that insanity and evil is relativistic as to society and time is valid.

There is a deep desire to define human actions as "normal" and "abnormal". To see those who commit acts of horrendous violence as "not one of us".

Of course, this reverts back to the primeval "you are not of our tribe, therefore you are different, therefore you are evil, therefore you should die" - your point?

Most of us here on SF recognize that humans are prone to atavistic urges, what seems to amaze and disgust us is that one of "us" could commit something so horrendous. That's when it hits home.

If we read of a rat eating its young or a praying mantis devouring its mate after having sex, I would think most people's reaction would be "shrug, they're different". If we read of a human mother eating her baby (after microwaving it for the appropriate time of course), or Bobbit chewing off her "mate's" member, well, then, that provokes an entirely different reaction.

Why? Because we expect the people in "our" society not to behave in such a fashion. "Our" was enclosed in quotes, because, once again, as you pointed out "our" is relativistic to place and time. Who today, besides Muslims (just to get your attention there SAM, not meant as truth, just to poke you ) would dream of sacrificing children by ripping their hearts out on a sacrificial altar to make the crops grow?

It was not considered insane or evil during the reign of the Aztecs, but would certainly (I think) be deemed such in most countries today. Why is this? Nobody seems to ask this question: Why are so many practices that were condoned in the past (child sacrifice, marriage to prepubescent children, cannibalism, etc.) reviled today? Is the human race maturing, or is this just a phase? Is this topic worthy of its own thread? Depending on the responses, or lack thereof, I will conider starting one devoted to this subject...

But history tells that there is no normal. The only normal people are the ones you don't really know. So what do we achieve by defining limits of normality and assigning standards of self awareness, remorse or the ability to distinguish between right or wrong?

I think this is similar in spirit to the questions I have raised. Why do we elevate certain practices at certain times, and denigrate and demonize those same practices at other times in other places? There must be some underlying driving force responsible here.

"Objective" or scientific knowledge of cause and effect come to mind as far as recent eras, but the cycles have been perpetuating for eons. What else drives this? Does anyone have ideas as to why we think killing an infant with a dull knife is barbaric today, but highly revered yesterday? I would love to hear others input on this issue...

 

[Randwolf]

Originally Posted by S.A.M.
There is nothing wrong with a man committing untold atrocities to get what he wants, no matter how illogical it seems.

Its The American Way©.

Oh, by the way, I was going to comment on your baiting here, but I found the moderators had beaten me to it by deletion. SAM, you have much to contribute, can't you tie a string to your finger to remind you not to trash America for, say, 72 hours? Do you think this would induce insanity, or perhaps suicide? I mean, for real, America has a tremendous amount of problems, but can you not resist the denigration and stop deflecting every thread into "let's bash America"? Please? Pretty please?

 

[Norsefire]

There is no morality and no evil

 

[S.A.M.]

Oh, by the way, I was going to comment on your baiting here, but I found the moderators had beaten me to it by deletion. SAM, you have much to contribute, can't you tie a string to your finger to remind you not to trash America for, say, 72 hours? Do you think this would induce insanity, or perhaps suicide? I mean, for real, America has a tremendous amount of problems, but can you not resist the denigration and stop deflecting every thread into "let's bash America"? Please? Pretty please?

Boo fricking hoo?

Evil or Insane?

Another thing you should realize, Lucy, is that the American Constitution is for Americans, not every jerk-water nation on Earth with jerk-water people and silly cultures! Most Americans don't really give a shit about them damned furriners ...regardless of what they say or claim. One American is worth hundreds of those damned foreigners ...and worth gazillions of Afghanis and Iraqs, for sure!

I think you're wrong there, Lucy. I think the American people have always been pretty much the same arrogant, self-centered, egotists that we are now. We saved Europe's ass twice with the blood of our young men and our money and equipment. We protected Europe's ass from the Russian bad guys with our young men and our equipment and our money. We have every right to be arrogant, self-centered egotists. We're also going to conduct our international politics as we choose, regardless whether you like it or not. And if you don't like it, then cram it up your ass!

What could the USA possibly want from that shit-hole, stinkin', poverty-stricken nation??

Besides, if we ever actually wanted something, we could just take it ...and toss a few coins to 'em just for the fun of watching the Cambodians fight over them.

Baron Max

Or just a good ole boy?

Well the one who commits horrendous acts have veered off of what the majority would consider the norm only if it places community at risk. For example you could be a complete eccentric, wear strange clothes, make strange remarks in public, dip the tea into the saucer and drink from it or whatever but society generally doesn't attempt to isolate a person unless it is threatening safety, general morality or becomes a public nuisance.

Only of their own society. Most societies will happily live on the destruction of other societies so long as they can make a profit from it.

What post resembles that of a sofa hitler? Otherwise it seems out of context if you know what I mean.

I think he's talking about all those armchair generals "liberating" the world. Like NATO, for instance, who ignore the sovereignty of nations when it conflicts with their profit margin

Or, he could be trolling and flaming me, but as he's an admin, that would be against site rules.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Sam, you are focusing on one small thing and labeling it evil. Doesn't the argument that he just loves his country and is a patriot apply just as much as when you claim the same thing about suicide bombers or muslims who commit terrorist acts?

This is a perfect example of the labels evil or insane being subjective and ultimately useless. From an outside point of view, it could be said that you and Baron Max are opposite sides of the same coin. You hate non-muslims, he hates non-americans. I'm sure we can find others who hate non-jews, non-christians, non-whites, and non-blacks, etc.

They all give similar reasons for their mindless hate-"That group is EVIL"

Utter nonsense.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam, you are focusing on one small thing and labeling it evil. Doesn't the argument that he just loves his country and is a patriot apply just as much as when you claim the same thing about suicide bombers or muslims who commit terrorist acts?.

So destroying other countries for profit is the same as getting frustrated over occupation? I personally think there is a great deal of difference between blowing yourself up under unbearable circumstances and exploiting entire nations for greed. To me its the difference between entering someone elses house to take what is theirs with force and attacking those who break into your house to take what is yours.

Are they equivalent to you?

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Yep.

Never heard the saying,"Different strokes for different folks?"

I will not hate those who want to kill me and those like me, however, I will try to prevent them from ever being a threat by trying to kill them.

Both sides are "moral and ethical" to themselves and their own culture.

Your view is clouded I think. What I think is "right" or "wrong" is meaningless. I am worried about myself and my culture, so my answer would be clouded as well.

 

[Cellar_Door]

" Psychopaths lack empathy and guilt, are egocentric and impulsive, and do not conform to social, moral and legal norms. They may appear to be quite normal and often even charming, a state of adaptation that psychiatrist Hervey Cleckley named the "mask of sanity".[10] "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer