Making Sense of Evil (Virginia Tech Massacre)

Crazy people may not do terrible things. Most don't. The mentaly ill sure as shit refrain from evil, because they also know it's wrong. Which means that it's not neccessarily the cause of their terrible actions, if they do perpetrate a crime, because that knowledge doesn't disappear, because they're mentally ill. It's a pre-hoc mistake.Normal people can do evil, and mentally ill people.
Normal people can do right, and mentally ill people can.
Normal people can do evil, and not be responsible.
Mentally ill people can do evil and be responsible.Life sure as shit isn't as black and white as this thread makes it out to be through opinionated falsities - that much I do know. It's like asking what makes a 1000cc engine powerful, the pistons or the sprocket ratios. Horsecrap - it's far more than that, AND some.Ask Michael Stone, atleast he knows what he's talking about.I find it ironic that he's the expert but doesn't talk in a "I know it all" manner.You guys really piss me off sometimes. What are you doing? Have you the downpat on every issue, because you thought about it over a chip-balm once. Do me a favour. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I did, thanks. I don't usually get like that. I guess it's beause this general attitude comes across as prevailent when I lurk and read. I'm not singling out individuals here - but sometimes people sound so arrogant, like their views are the absolute truth or something.Sorry about my frustration-fit. I had to get it out. It's not personal.

I was just trying to remind people that there is a whole host of variables to consider, before they pidgeon hole something.The quote I quoted you saying, I didn't get it. Was it supposed to relate to anything directly? You said; "Crazy people aren't evil, though they may do terrible things"No offense Shraff - but that's not one of your greatest insights to say the least. If you were just rolling out un-formed thoughts, fair enough.Do you mean that crazy = mentally ill, for starters?If we define evil as sadism, and egotism, and a high selfishness, such as Stone's "most evil" chart suggests, then the individual must show some signs of this in order to be high on his scale.Allow me to Sherlock;It struck me as most narcissistic of the Virginia -tech murderer, to send the photographs of himself, apparently "posing". This suggests to me that there is a high egotism in the individual. Self-importance has outweighed other considerations in his own mind. He has atleast, chosen to not take out his violence on himself alone.

​

But that's nothing concrete, it's only a speculation based on observation. I'm sure Michael Stone would agree that it's good for us to not conclude anything, but instead, tentatively analyze all of those variables involved in the hope that we can get closer to solving the riddle.Throwing the ingredients into the oven willy nilly, and whacking the thing out after five minutes, sure doesn't bake mikey's cake.

It is possible that you can be mentally ill, or have some mild inherently "mental" problem, yet still be evil by will, and even use that illness as an excuse. This can be proved by people who have the same mental problem, who never do evil.So a mentally ill person can still be evil.

My point is that evil-doers might have something wrong with them, but does that mean people with something wrong with them are evil-doers? This is why we must be careful to not blame the illness, as you mention.I think one has to look at it by taking people who are equal in their problems, and seeing if any of them refrain from their compulsions.Psychopaths are a very clear bunch for example, but they're not all murderers. I agree that each pysche is unique, and that makes a unique person. One might have strange desires, another might not.I don't want to get into the freewill argument, but I think we can atleast agree that it is clear enough that the perpetrator is not forced to do what he does.Is he somewhat to blame? Well, yes, but I still believe he had a choice. I find it hard to believe that any desire forces one's will to be completely deminished in all instances.Are paedophiles blameless for example, if they act on their urges? I know that some have had their own areas cut in order to stop themselves.So logically, is the problem within the individual or the mental disorder? certainly it's the individual, pertaining to the direct act. For both were compelled to do it - but neither were forced. One didn't do it - the other did.I think the individual will always be accountable, by some measure. Others more accountable, others a lot less. I agree. We're all human. I think deep down people generally agree that some things are evil, and that choices can be made.And that's just from a human-perspective, not a religious one.