Evil In Norway

[sam247]

Ahh, I see the same trend on here as I did on Facebook over the weekend. It seems addicted Celebs deserve more attention and sympathy than innocent civilians going about their daily business.

 

RIP to those that were needlessly slaughtered.

 

I agree. When did celebrity habits and footballers become news?

[wheels]

Norway massacre: Breivik declared insane

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15936276

[Mission]

I see he's been found sane and sentenced to 21 years in jail.

 

Not a bad jail either, he gets 3 cells!

 

Once again, RIP to all those innocent souls who were needlessly slaughtered.

[Evil Goblin]

But where is the dividing line between sane and insane to be drawn? Is such extreme action as Breivik undertook necessarily a sign of insanity just because it is extreme?

 

Given my own belief that there is actually no such thing as Free Will, which is but an illusion, how do we decide what insanity (or sanity) is?

[MilitantDogOwner]

But where is the dividing line between sane and insane to be drawn? Is such extreme action as Breivik undertook necessarily a sign of insanity just because it is extreme?

 

Given my own belief that there is actually no such thing as Free Will, which is but an illusion, how do we decide what insanity (or sanity) is?

 

I'd say gunning down a bunch of innocent people for no good reason is a good place to start looking at whether someone is sane or otherwise.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

But where is the dividing line between sane and insane to be drawn? Is such extreme action as Breivik undertook necessarily a sign of insanity just because it is extreme?

 

Given my own belief that there is actually no such thing as Free Will, which is but an illusion, how do we decide what insanity (or sanity) is?

I think another good question is whether his acts are evil or not.

 

I will think on this though about what makes something sane or insane. Sometimes I think I am insane, but then I meet other people and I can see that they're fucking nuts. Difficult concept.

[Declan]

MDO - "for no good reason"

 

But what about a bad reason?

 

The point is Breviek had a reason. Had he done it for financial gain or personal revenge - would we call him insane? How does that differ from killing to achieve political ends.

[Chinahand]

Breivik was no doubt one warped individual, but I feel it is possible to be so warped not by errors in the biochemistry of the brain, but rather by becoming obsessed with a particular ideology.

 

History is full of such warped individuals. They build concentration camps, fly planes into buildings, blow themselves and others up, and lynch and stone people who do not conform to their beliefs.

 

Such ideologies of hate fester in even the most liberal countries.

 

LDV stop trolling - the mass deliberate killing of people is evil. There are times when you can debate whether it is a lesser evil - Breivik tried that one. He failed, I doubt any attempt by you would be different.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Isn't insane related to an issue of responsibility? I do believe in determinism, which mitigates responsibility, but I think the distinction would be between those who are considered to have had no control over themselves because they no choice about being made to think and act irrationally. This would not the case for the sane person.

 

What do you think?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV stop trolling - the mass deliberate killing of people is evil. There are times when you can debate whether it is a lesser evil - Breivik tried that one. He failed, I doubt any attempt by you would be different.

I am not trolling. You can be so arrogant at times.

 

It is a valid philosophical question - what is evil and who determines what is evil. I am telling you, you can't just point to something and say it is evil just because it is.

 

This intelligent and seemingly rational man claimed he was doing good. He genuinely believed that he was saving his country - that was the ultimate goal and something incredibly important. And he believed that his country was being destroyed by immigration.

Killing people to prove a point, to demonstrate or make changes was an acceptable act for him. (Whether he reasons this before or afterwards doesn't matter too much.)

 

Is evil only what is not good?

And Is it simply that the majority have deemed murder to be 'evil' which means that his acts are evil or is there some fundamental human moral position that renders these acts as immoral to the highest degree?

[HeliX]

Given my own belief that there is actually no such thing as Free Will, which is but an illusion, how do we decide what insanity (or sanity) is?

 

That's a pretty odd precursor for a question. And an odd belief in fact. Do you have any evidence of a lack of free will? I think I have pretty good evidence that I have free will.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

What is your evidence?

[HeliX]

Being able to do whatever I want, mostly.

 

 

EDIT: I can probably pre-empt the 20 page discussion this is going to turn into. The counter argument will be "Ah but do you really or does it just seem like you do! What if it's all already decided" etc etc.

 

To which the only response is: "Why on earth would you invent a complicated and unprovable explanation for something that can be very simply observed and explained".

 

 

tl;dr for the next x pages: Occam's Razor.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Being able to do whatever I want, mostly.

 

EDIT: I can probably pre-empt the 20 page discussion this is going to turn into. The counter argument will be "Ah but do you really or does it just seem like you do! What if it's all already decided" etc etc.

 

To which the only response is: "Why on earth would you invent a complicated and unprovable explanation for something that can be very simply observed and explained".

tl;dr for the next x pages: Occam's Razor.

It can't be very simply observed. That's the problem. You may THINK it can, because you think you have control over your decisions and future. But there is no evidence for this. And it doesn't appear to be strictly the case.

 

There are many things you have absolutely no control over and others where you have little. How much free will do you have when you have to work and received orders from a Manager (a favourite issue of mine). You have to eat and sleep. If you don't you may argue that by your own free will you choose to die, but you cannot escape death.

 

It may be that there is a good that has mapped out and planned every action and choice that you will take. Or even has made such that you reach particular points in life. Calvinists believe in this sort of thing. Although I would agree that the idea and existence of a God is not the simplest explanation for everything.

 

Also, it seems bizarre but the evidence points to the fact that the brain has betrayed something strange about how we come to take actions. It appears that processes are undertaken to effect a movement or a decision before you consciously decide to move or decide.

 

And then how much of your life has been determined already because of where you were born, who your parents are, what school you went to, the people you met, etc. etc. Your life is guided by these influences and many of them you cannot control but they affect you and lead you to think, act, and do as a result of them.

[Evil Goblin]

MDO - "for no good reason"

 

But what about a bad reason?

 

The point is Breviek had a reason. Had he done it for financial gain or personal revenge - would we call him insane? How does that differ from killing to achieve political ends.

Yes, Declan - Breivik obviously thought he had a good reason to do what he did even if the rest of us think it was a bad reason. It seems appropriate to ask - what is the difference between a good reason and a bad reason? It cannot be left to just subjective opinions of what constitutes Good and Bad but must surely be based on some objective criterion such as "will this action lead to the attainment of my ends?". i.e. Good and Bad are not to be regarded as moral matters, just pragmatic ones.