Hello Again Cyberspace.
In the wake of yesterday's murder post, I received a couple of texts and a comment on the actual post. Pretty much everyone said the same thing - murder is always wrong. I'm not going to get back into that specific debate, but this is somewhat of a continuation. What I want to talk about today is a recurring theme in the feedback I've received...sanity.
As any of you can see if you look at the comment on yesterday's blog (thank you Anonymous), the general thought seems to be that murder committed by a "sane" person is wrong. I ask you this...how do you measure sanity?
Sure, there are psychologists and psychiatrists out there, and they have their own criteria. And some people that are dubbed "unfit" are definitely not right in the head. But who is? Just by the small amount of research I've done, I have both psychopathic and sociopathic tendencies, I am a definite candidate for bipolarism and OCD. I have definitely been depressed as well. Does this make me clinically insane? Or are the 'symptoms' of 'insanity' just much too broad? Is it only a diagnosis that is preventing our society from just standing up and saying "Murder is now acceptable?" I don't know...but I do know that the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most profitable.
Let's talk about war for a second. War...murder in the name of your country. These people not only get away with murder...they are revered for committing the act. Keeping our country safe. Kill them before they kill us. Is this a form of murder that is acceptable? I don't know, but I'm willing to bet that the general population doesn't want to think of its military as a giant group of lunatics carrying weapons.
So why is it allowed to continue? Just because it fuels most of the world's economy? Then we are condoning murder for profit. This is a fact...it is indisputable. I mean, how many times have you seen that bumper sticker - the camouflaged ribbon that says "Support Our Troops"...or the one that says "If you don't support our troops feel free to stand in front of them"?
I know you want to make the PTSD argument. This is an article taken from CBC last summer, which really shows how our government feels about the mindset of our troops - Soliders With PTSD Redeployed.
I don't think that murder should be ok for those of us that society deems "insane." Take the guy who chopped off some guy's head on the bus in Alberta...he's getting out, just four years after committing such a heinous act. This says to me that the more insane your crime is, the less you will be punished.
And just one last quick thought before I wrap this up...look at how our society runs. It is insane. Issues like poverty and hunger are so commonplace that we are able to turn a blind eye - I read an article somewhere recently that claimed that world hunger could be solved with less than 50 billion dollars. It sounds plausible to me. But who wants to spend money if it doesn't eventually turn into profit? Profit is all that matters judging by our society. I guess that money is the most common reason for murder to be ok.
And that is not only wrong, but also insane.
Peace and Love
The Critical Stranger
As always thoughts, comments and suggestions are encouraged and appreciated!
PS - Thank you to all who have commented thus far...keep it comin'!!!
I love the follow up post regarding such a heated topic.
ReplyDeleteGreat points regarding the measurement of sanity. While it's easy to spot the extremes of insanity, such as schizophrenia, where do we draw the dividing line through the middle ground?
This also made me think about the countless court cases which revolve around "temporary insanity". While I won't draw any definitive conclusions as I haven't studied the mental state, it sounds to me like an extreme case of poor anger management. Another way to get away with murder, be it planed or not perhaps?
I think I would have to say that anyone who finds murder to be pleasurable has to be insane.
I also think that anyone who murders for profit (government) deserves the same fate as those who murder for pleasure.
Lastly, I think that wars under all circumstances are both pointless and a massive contradiction to the internal laws of most nations. If it is ok for 2 countries to settle a dispute with violence and mass murder, then it should be ok for 2 citizens to resolve a conflict with the same extreme measures. But of course, that's not allowed. But why not?
If the leaders of 2 nations cannot settle an issue peacefully and decide violence is the solution, they themselves should battle it out in the arena.. Gladiator style. Leave the civilians alone. Remember, the government is there to represent the people. Maybe they should be representing them on the battlefield as well.
I've got to many things running circles in my mind right now! Thanks for keeping me mentally on edge!
Cheers
Respectfully, Brandon, you're not framing this correctly. You're using the term murder in places where it simply isn't applicable. Specifically, murder and killing--which you've used more or less interchangeably--are not the same thing. Murder is unlawful(unsanctioned)killing. Thus, killing is always killing, killing can be murder, but killing isn't always murder.
ReplyDeleteAnd while anyone can make a case that semantics are involved, to equate killing in self-defense and pre-mediated murder seems quite a stretch.
That's the point from which to begin.
Now, your commenter suggests that nobody is born with a tendency to kill. I'd like to see some proof of that. Because on it's face, it seems we'd have more killing and murder if there were no consequences. Seems the 'conditioning' is for restraint.
Okay, we agree there is a food-chain, of which human beings sit atop because of our brains(mostly). So killing for food is natural to that extent, but does that change when you take into account we don't need to kill animals to survive? In other words, does that brain we have also mean maybe not killing because we don't need to?
You mentioned the death penalty and the hypothetical of your family perishing as the result of foul play. If the death penalty isn't about vengeance, why do you think you'd respond as you've suggested you would? Also, I would assume you consider yourself sane. As such, do you envision such retaliation as a sane one?
Incidentally, this comes from someone who is opposed to the death penalty in any circumstance you care to name. And from someone who believes we humans are far too quick to sanction killing.
Thanks for the excellent post topic.
Good points all around. I won't engage in debate on this issue, as I feel there will never be a true resolution...this why some states still have the death penalty. I will say this...I don't see how there is a difference between killing and murder - anything killed with the intent of ending its life has been murdered as far as I'm concerned.
ReplyDeleteAs I've said before, the point of my blog is just to make you think...so if I've done that, I've achieved my goal. There are a few things that I've written in here that don't necessarily reflect my own opinions, only the conflicts that I see with any particular issues.
But I do enjoy the banter, so please keep it up!!!
"I won't engage in debate...[but]I will say this..."
ReplyDeleteThat's too bad. I'm surprised to find the usual standard of American conservatives employed by a Canadian who seems less than conservative, at least on this issue.
As for equating murder and killing, it's okay to change definitions. Just be sure people know you're using them synonymously. And we're going to then need a new term to distinguish between murder one and self-defense, unless we're going to imprison both, or let both off without restitution.
If the purpose is to stimulate thought, then 'banter' is hardly necessary. Thanks for the advice.
Well, Phineas, I thought it pertinent to respond to you...however I felt that I had much too much to say. I guess what I should have said in retrospect is "As much as I'd love to debate this with you, I feel as though a debate on this issue would be perpetually ongoing, so I will not respond to each point you've made." I apologize for that.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the debate is inevitable and unavoidable - which it should be, as the sanctity of life is a major issue in our society. So I ask you this...you say killing and murder are different, as murder is unsanctioned or unlawful - who has the power to make the decision as to who should live and who should die?
I am also opposed to the death penalty for this exact reason. There is no criteria, as far as I'm concerned, that a person can meet that qualifies them to determine whether or not another person will live.
Sure, there are reactionary circumstances that lead people to murder others...self-defense for one. Is self-defense a valid excuse? Does killing someone else before they kill you make it justified? Where is the line drawn? If that person is going to make my life miserable (such as the plethora of bullying cases that have led to suicide, which could be considered murder by proxy) should I be allowed to kill them? Do they have to be pointing a gun at me? How can I ever say what another person would have done if I've killed them before they had a chance to make that decision themselves? I'm sure that every single time I get in my car and drive down the road that someone at some point puts my life in danger, for however a breif second it may be - if that's the main selling point of self-defense (your life being endangered), then is most road rage not justifiable and even forgivable by such rationale? It's a very fine line and I'm still not sure how I feel about it. I know that the "stand your ground" law is stupid.
As far as banter being pointless, I don't think it ever is. One opinion is just as valid as the next, and I like to know what those opinions are and how or even if those opinions are affected by what I have to say...that doesn't necessarily mean I want to change it.
Brandon, I apologize for being so late with my response. I had been traveling when I originally wrote my prior comments and decided it was simply too much to keep typing finger-by-finger on an iPad, so regrettably I was able to response no sooner.
ReplyDeleteI suppose it needs saying at this point that I understand this is your blog and you get to maintain it on your own terms. But it seemed rather strange that such a heavy topic would invite comment and go no further. Such was the basis for my former comments. I am grateful that you took the opportunity to somewhat clarify your intent and hesitation to engage in 'debate.'
It also needs saying that I'm not particularly looking for 'debate.' Believe me, I can have that anytime I so desire. But writing being what it is, sometimes it begs the asking of a question. And beyond that, the lack of resolution is the very nature of interpretive questions like that ones you've raised. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed (or debated).
Yes, murder and killing, are, by definition, different. To be fair, I would gently suggest that perhaps you're asking the wrong question. It's not who decides who lives and dies, it's who decides what killing is lawful and which is justifiable. I'm sure you understand that I'm a little surprised that you've expressed that killing and murder are the same, when you've pointed out situations that could, in the eyes of many, indeed justify homicide. As liberal as I am in terms of our system of crime and punishment here in the U.S.A., even I concede that there are times when killing, while never a pleasant thing, should be considered lawful. Defending yourself, or someone else from attack would certainly be something I would consider reasonable and justifiable. I would not disagree that the line is gray; I do however acknowledge the existence of that line.
Believe it or not, I share your concern for the decisions made by those empowered with regard to the sanctity of life. Nobody is more critical of the military or law enforcement than I am. But what you're suggesting is that every soldier and every cop who kills in the line of duty is a murderer. I simply cannot accept such a broad view.
With regard to your multitude of examples, remember that intent and immediate danger (without the opportunity to flee safely) play the biggest role in determining what is considered reasonable and justifiable. Forgetting the consequences of your actions and the moral obligations for a moment, ask yourself: is it reasonable that an individual would fire back at someone who has just fired with the expressed intent of taking his life? I would ague that the unreasonable act is to not respond to remove the danger. We agree there are myriad circumstances where intent and reasonableness are either misconstrued or misunderstood. But surely there must be some where they are most certainly not: "I'm going to kill you!" [Bang! Bang]. With that in mind, I don't believe your road-rage example to be relevant. The immediacy of decisions is paramount in driving to be sure; the intent of other drivers is difficult to determine.
I'm afraid we must disagree vis-a-vis banter. I've had enough of it to last several lifetimes. What's lacking is intelligent, civil discourse. I appreciate finding that here.
And I'll wrap up by saying that it's heartening to know there are individuals out there who think as you do. We may not agree on the details, but we agree that decisions of life and death shouldn't be taken likely. It bothers me that it doesn't bother others like it bothers you.
What a decent soul you have.
Peace.
Thanks Phineas.
DeleteI have to say, I think you should start a blog. You've made some excellent points and you obviously enjoy the mental labour of logical reason.
While I do disagree with you on some points, I gladly will accept any conclusion that is arrived at through reasonable premises...which you have done.
I often play Devil's Advocate - I actually find some perverse type of enjoyment in looking for cracks in arguments. So when there is an issue that I see problems with, I feel the need to try to pick it apart as much as possible. I guess what really brought this post on originally was the thought of one life being more valuable than another.
I agree that I have generalized...I'm terrible for that. And this issue is probably one of the most subjective that I ever could have written about. Having said that, I would still argue that most times killing, to me, is synonymous with murder - although when I was young someone told me that the only real crime that exists is theft; murder being the theft of life. But that's just a little aside that could spawn a whole new issue lol.
In conclusion Phineas, I want to genuinely thank you for your thoughts. You were perfectly right to call me out on asking for comments and then trying to get out responding to those comments...I apologize for that. So again, thank you...we'll have to agree to partially disagree on this one. I hope you'll keep reading.
Peace and Love
Brandon,
DeleteThank you for your kind words. I will indeed keep reading. It's not often one is allowed to peer into another's soul.
Phineas
Brandon and Phineas,
ReplyDeleteGreat discussion you have going here. I would like to chime in about comment made regarding my earlier comment that no-one is born with a desire to kill for pleasure.
While I cannot provide any proof of this, as this would require not only fully understanding human consciousness as well it's roots; but also analysing the brain and or consciousness of every child born into this world. Which at the current time is impossible.
However, I would would still say that killing for pleasure, or pre-meditated killing for whatever reason is a by-product of a socially conditioned mind.
Of course, we would have more murders if there was no consequences, but the real issue is, consequences or not, where does that desire to kill come from? What is a person being exposed to through out their life the creates such a desire? Since children (with their developing brains) to some degree, lack the full understanding of consequence, why do we not see more murders committed by children.. if indeed people are born with a desire to kill?
If we can assume that who you are as a person is directly related to the experiences you have throughout your life, then the desire to kill is a by-product of said experiences. There is some proof to this as modern science shows that neural pathways in the brain may be formed and reinforced by experience and specific thought patterns.
I would also like to reinforce this view by saying that the rate of murders committed by small children pales compared to the rate of murders committed by adults... There are accidental deaths or killings of course, but these are not pre-meditated with the intention of killing. Most children who commit murder are above the age of 10, in which case they had plenty of time to be socially conditioned.
If you could show me any statistics which show a similar rate of murder committed by children and adults, I will gladly change my stance!
Just my humble opinion!
Cheers!
Anonymous,
DeleteRespectfully, your prior comment did not assert "...for pleasure..." as your current one does. That changes the framework of your statement entirely. So much so, in fact, that I would not have an opinion thereon. Nor did I suppose you were talking about children specifically. Those notwithstanding:
We agree that nurture plays an important role in our lives. But that nurture includes consequences of actions. What I suggested earlier was that the perceived expediency of killing was innate, not that children, whom I suspect largely don't even understand what death is at very early ages, let alone are even capable or sophisticated enough for killing generally(thankfully). Yet children are indeed taught "right from wrong" which is largely consequence-based. That consequences are not fully understood matters little; they are extant. A slap on the wrist for bad behavior doesn't have to be completely understood; it is felt; that, it seems, serves as plenty of understanding in many cases. What I'm supposing is that a total absence of consequences changes the equation so much that instinct precedes "right and wrong" and when the age is reached where a level of sophistication allows, killing occurs as expedient. The same action which results as a pushing match in the sandbox becomes much worse when the same feelings occur in more sophisticated individuals.
It probably needs saying at this point that this is my own hypothesis. It is not the result of any formal study.
The larger point is that "right and wrong" are ultimately arbitrary--unless you subscribe to some belief system where moral standards are available. It's little more than "happy talk" to say that human beings are naturally inclined to do the "right" thing. The nature vs. grace fight is ongoing. And grace is only a fairly modern player.
In his book Treatise on the Gods, H.L. Mencken sought to allay fears that we would have no morals without religion. Personally, I think he failed miserably. And I, like Mencken, am an atheist.
People I would consider sane have taken pleasure from revenge killings. While I find that unacceptable under my own moral code, I would have a rather difficult time explaining why that is wrong.
I wish I could accept that people were innately 'good.' Unfortunately, the evidence suggests otherwise. I am in the awkward position of being opposed to killing in nearly every instance, but incapable of reasoning to support such a conclusion.
Thanks for the comment. Be well.