'Evil' V's Mental Illness

[EuanH78]

Where some say 'Evil' I say mentally ill.

There is no doubt that 'Evil' acts exist. Any number of threads here are discussing them and their perpetrators.

It's convenient and easy to say someone is evil when they have committed an appalling crime that shocks and sickens us but this achieves nothing except to salve the unease of those that say it. It certainly achieves nothing for the victims of said crimes. It neither illuminates us as to why nor how similar things can be prevented in the future.

It does however, allow us to continue living our life as if nothing has happened, we can express our moral outrage and forget about it making no changes to the way we live our life. We can get on with things, satisfied that our outward showing of disgust is all thats required to maintain our sense of moral 'righteousness'.

This is a lie to ourselves. In fact, our willful blindness to the suffering of others is passive complicity to these evil acts we fake outrage at.

Carl Jung believed that ' The foundation of all mental illness is an unwillingness to experience legitimate suffering' . That being, the suppression of genuine emotional pain leads to mental illness.

Counselors all over the world spend their time helping people through genuine emotional struggles, years past emotional wounds coming to the surface in destructive ways, see alcoholism, self harm, drug addictions etc, etc...

In essence counselling is professional friendship to those in need.

Now consider the ten year old child killer Robert Thompson ( I am using him as my example because it is the most blindingly obvious case of 'cause and causality' your likely to see ) growing up in extreme poverty, both financially and emotionally. Subject to daily extreme violence from multiple directions (siblings) and without any guidance/ boundaries/ empathy or understanding from primary caregivers (1 of which is absent anyway) . It's not surprising that he would have emotional problems, suppression is almost guaranteed as is the eventual acting out of the negative emotions that he is suppressing.

If this child is given an avenue to express his pain and suffering legitimately its likely I am not using him as my example. Sadly, I am.

We are all capable of extending empathy and understanding to those in trouble if we choose to, That is a personal choice and responsibility to take on. It is a sad indictment of our society that Robert Thompson was allowed to go ten years without anyone showing him any. If they had, then James Bulger may still be alive.
As Edmund Burke famously said ' The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing '

Compassion and empathy were an alien concept to the killers of James Bulger, they showed this in their crime after all quite clearly. A psychologist might say they were mentally deficient (see mental illness).

That some of us would choose to punish these children without compassion or empathy (the very same people who decry the killers lack of these basic emotions) is not only a non sequitur of the most surreal but a complete hypocrisy.

Discuss,

[Steve-O]

No, those 2 were quite simply EVIL! It was premeditated y'know? They knew what they were doing, I don't care what you say...:blah::blah:

But seriously, you are correct. :agree:

[J-C]

I don't think the Bulger killers were mentally ill as such, due the fact is was their upbringing and social bachground and nothing to do with their actual brains being in a state of disrepair as it were. These 2 lads didn't know the difference between right and wrong and playeed out there little fantasies until a cruel act was committed.

I would say Evil is more to do with an extreme mental condition.........Charles Manson/Peter Sutcliffe etc. In such cases the brain has been warped out of all recognition and the person has delusions which then make his actions towards certain people evil.

The only problem we have with the above scenario is, were these peoples brains born evil and twisted, or did they become that way through time and circumstances. With the Bulger killers we assume it was their circumstances in life which turned them into killers but what if they were just born evil with twisted minds, can you say they will be treated and cured or are their brains too far gone??

[Phil D. Rolls]

Carl Jung believed that ' The foundation of all mental illness is an unwillingness to experience legitimate suffering' .

What utter p*sh (by Jung). What is legitimate suffering anyway? That reads like Jung is blaming the person with madness for their predicament, and saying that all they have to do is pull themself together.

A stimulating topic and one which I don't think we'll ever get an answer to. I'll throw my hat into the ring and say I think madness is loss of free will.

[EuanH78]

What utter p*sh (by Jung). What is legitimate suffering anyway? That reads like Jung is blaming the person with madness for their predicament, and saying that all they have to do is pull themself together.

A stimulating topic and one which I don't think we'll ever get an answer to. I'll throw my hat into the ring and say I think madness is loss of free will.

I would interpret 'legitimate suffering' as emotional pain, I think Jung has chosen his words carefully there. Legitimate being the counter to the psychologists/ counselors/ friends 'validation' of that pain.

Inability might, however have been a better word than unwillingness. Open to interpretation I guess though in essence both are true. A psychologist can offer the tools and support to someone suffering but ultimately it is the person themselves that must undertake the emotional journey is it not?

Supporting someone who needs it is key to allowing that personal healing to happen IMO.

As a point of debate I would argue that what we would call madness is actually the very essence of free will rather than the lack of. It is interesting that it is often easier to treat perpetrators of crimes rather than the victims of the same crime.

IMO That this is because the perpetrator has acted out (expressed) the emotional result of their pain, broken the emotional chains that bind them mentally. The mental block is gone and can be directed as a more positive release in the future whereas the victim still has the emotional blockage to deal with and still has to not only understand it, break it, but also find safe release for it.

[steakbake]

http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/03/lynch-mob-young-violence-child

Will Self's latest (and as usual) astute article.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I would interpret 'legitimate suffering' as emotional pain, I think Jung has chosen his words carefully there. Legitimate being the counter to the psychologists/ counselors/ friends 'validation' of that pain.

Inability might, however have been a better word than unwillingness. Open to interpretation I guess though in essence both are true. A psychologist can offer the tools and support to someone suffering but ultimately it is the person themselves that must undertake the emotional journey is it not?

Supporting someone who needs it is key to allowing that personal healing to happen IMO.

As a point of debate I would argue that what we would call madness is actually the very essence of free will rather than the lack of. It is interesting that it is often easier to treat perpetrators of crimes rather than the victims of the same crime.

IMO That this is because the perpetrator has acted out (expressed) the emotional result of their pain, broken the emotional chains that bind them mentally. The mental block is gone and can be directed as a more positive release in the future whereas the victim still has the emotional blockage to deal with and still has to not only understand it, break it, but also find safe release for it.

I agree about Jung, "inability" would be a better word. It would point in the right direction.

I agree that exercising free will can be interpreted as madness. Foucault said that it is society that makes us mad. What I took from that is that it is how others believe we should behave, rather than what we believe to be right that is the definition of sanity.

However my feeling is that the person with madness has lost there "self". That is to say that decisions are made by the "mad" version of themself, rather than the sane one.

I don't think the person with paranoia can be said to operating on their free will, as it is their thoughts are disturbed, causing them to act in a way they wouldn't chose.

Likewise the person experiencing a manic episode is not doing so out of free will, as they are not acting in a way they would normally chose.

The question I can't answer is why do other kids with nearly identical experiences to Thomson not kill anyone. Is there something inherent in a person that makes them evil.

I think to describe someone as evil, they have to have a choice. I wonder if there is something inherent in us that makes these choices for us.

In which case, there would be no free will, and by my definition they'd be mad!!! My head is starting to hurt.:brickwall:

[EuanH78]

I don't think the Bulger killers were mentally ill as such, due the fact is was their upbringing and social bachground and nothing to do with their actual brains being in a state of disrepair as it were. These 2 lads didn't know the difference between right and wrong and playeed out there little fantasies until a cruel act was committed.

I would say Evil is more to do with an extreme mental condition.........Charles Manson/Peter Sutcliffe etc. In such cases the brain has been warped out of all recognition and the person has delusions which then make his actions towards certain people evil.

The only problem we have with the above scenario is, were these peoples brains born evil and twisted, or did they become that way through time and circumstances. With the Bulger killers we assume it was their circumstances in life which turned them into killers but what if they were just born evil with twisted minds, can you say they will be treated and cured or are their brains too far gone??

You have brought up lots of good stuff to debate JC.

The Bulger killers were mentally deficient. They lacked empathy, compassion and the ability to differentiate between right and wrong. They were emotionally malnourished and a product of the enviroment they were in. Thats what their mental illness was and what caused that illness/ deficiency.

I think you are right that what we call evil is an extreme mental condition. I think though it is an easy/ cheap way out for us to call it evil. If we accept that Charles Manson and Peter Sutcliffe are mentally ill rather than 'evil' (though their actions have been evil ) we have to accept that they are suffering mental illness and have to challenge our ideas of how to deal with them.

Extreme punitive measures seem appealing at first glance but achieve nothing other than remove the offender from our consciousness.

Whilst victims like James Bulger can never be brought back to life and his killers should be 'punished'. It makes absolutely no sense to treat someone who has no sense of empathy and compassion without ourselves showing them empathy and compassion. We are, after all morally better and mentally healthy are we not? Should we not lead by example?

I dont know if anyone ever becomes beyond being 'cured'. I think in psychological terms the limits of our understanding at times may prohibit it. But thats not to say it will always be that way in the future. They used to shoot WW1 soldiers suffering from shell shock a hundred years ago after all.

[Jay]

No, those 2 were quite simply EVIL! It was premeditated y'know? They knew what they were doing, I don't care what you say...:blah::blah:

But seriously, you are correct. :agree:

Whats the point? Who is going to say anything different when before they even get a chance their opinion is ridiculed.

Obviously your opinion is the only correct one Steve O and any other opinion is a waste of time - I bow to you sir :cool2:

[steakbake]

I agree about Jung, "inability" would be a better word. It would point in the right direction.

I agree that exercising free will can be interpreted as madness. Foucault said that it is society that makes us mad. What I took from that is that it is how others believe we should behave, rather than what we believe to be right that is the definition of sanity.

However my feeling is that the person with madness has lost there "self". That is to say that decisions are made by the "mad" version of themself, rather than the sane one.

I don't think the person with paranoia can be said to operating on their free will, as it is their thoughts are disturbed, causing them to act in a way they wouldn't chose.

Likewise the person experiencing a manic episode is not doing so out of free will, as they are not acting in a way they would normally chose.

The question I can't answer is why do other kids with nearly identical experiences to Thomson not kill anyone. Is there something inherent in a person that makes them evil.

I think to describe someone as evil, they have to have a choice. I wonder if there is something inherent in us that makes these choices for us.

In which case, there would be no free will, and by my definition they'd be mad!!! My head is starting to hurt.:brickwall:

Actions are judged according to what has been deemed as normal in the society in which they occur. What is or isn't normal is determined by a kind of collective consent. Collective consent is determined by how we justify our actions to and amongst ourselves.

The basis of our collective consent can and does change over time.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Actions are judged according to what has been deemed as normal in the society in which they occur. What is or isn't normal is determined by a kind of collective consent. Collective consent is determined by how we justify our actions to and amongst ourselves.

The basis of our collective consent can and does change over time.

I agree, and anyone who is not normal is a deviant. But, is normality the same thing as sanity?

[EuanH78]

I agree about Jung, "inability" would be a better word. It would point in the right direction.

I agree that exercising free will can be interpreted as madness. Foucault said that it is society that makes us mad. What I took from that is that it is how others believe we should behave, rather than what we believe to be right that is the definition of sanity.

However my feeling is that the person with madness has lost there "self". That is to say that decisions are made by the "mad" version of themself, rather than the sane one.

I don't think the person with paranoia can be said to operating on their free will, as it is their thoughts are disturbed, causing them to act in a way they wouldn't chose.

Likewise the person experiencing a manic episode is not doing so out of free will, as they are not acting in a way they would normally chose.

The question I can't answer is why do other kids with nearly identical experiences to Thomson not kill anyone. Is there something inherent in a person that makes them evil.

I think to describe someone as evil, they have to have a choice. I wonder if there is something inherent in us that makes these choices for us.

In which case, there would be no free will, and by my definition they'd be mad!!! My head is starting to hurt.:brickwall:

Pfft you know Foucault? (sorry, couldn't resist :greengrin )

I agree with much of what you say though I wouldn't consider paranoia or mania as madness per se. I would equate them with something like depression, more like a symptom of something being wrong.

I think this is the point before the psychological 'break' could occur either positively or negatively. Positively if validated and supported properly or negatively if repressed and denied. Either way it results in the mind to act free from the initial stressors. All IMO.

FWIW my brain is frazzled now too :grr:. I'm on holiday from work today and haven't used my brain so much in ages :greengrin

[EuanH78]

Actions are judged according to what has been deemed as normal in the society in which they occur. What is or isn't normal is determined by a kind of collective consent. Collective consent is determined by how we justify our actions to and amongst ourselves.

The basis of our collective consent can and does change over time.


I agree, and anyone who is not normal is a deviant. But, is normality the same thing as sanity?

Indeed, normality in say parts of Nigeria where Sharia law is practiced may not be normal here but is it any reflection on sanity?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Pfft you know Foucault? (sorry, couldn't resist :greengrin )

I agree with much of what you say though I wouldn't consider paranoia or mania as madness per se. I would equate them with something like depression, more like a symptom of something being wrong.

I think this is the point before the psychological 'break' could occur either positively or negatively. Positively if validated and supported properly or negatively if repressed and denied. Either way it results in the mind to act free from the initial stressors. All IMO.

FWIW my brain is frazzled now too :grr:. I'm on holiday from work today and haven't used my brain so much in ages :greengrin

Seven times I've posted that gag on different threads, and not one person rises to the bait. Then when someone cracks it, it's at my expense. :boo hoo:

In all my reading I've not seen anything conclusive as to why severe mental illness occurs. Thinking about helping the person recover though, I can see a clear distinction between the psychotic and the affective disorders.

When someone is truly psychotic, it is like they are in an alternative reality. What has caused this is a matter of debate. But the ones I've come across have been "barking", to use a technical term.

Anyway, I'm going to read some stuff on the "mad or bad" question before saying any more on the subject. At the end of the day, I suppose it really starts with how you define madness.

Taking Carl Rogers' approach, I'd say there as many definitions of madness a there are people. Which leads to SteakBake's feeling that society has to gravitate towards a norm.

[steakbake]

I agree, and anyone who is not normal is a deviant. But, is normality the same thing as sanity?

Sanity is entirely subjective.

[Steve-O]

Whats the point? Who is going to say anything different when before they even get a chance their opinion is ridiculed.

Obviously your opinion is the only correct one Steve O and any other opinion is a waste of time - I bow to you sir :cool2:

At last...:wink:

[Jay]

At last...:wink:

I know. This isn't really a thread for discussion its for those of one trail of thought to agree and pat each other on the back, those who wont accept others opinions, its a bit of a love in :devil:

[Phil D. Rolls]

All I said was, "that Halibut was fit for Jehova".

[J-C]

All I said was, "that Halibut was fit for Jehova".


There are times FR when I wonder what it's like to be in the mind and little world of Mr Filled Rolls, I can imagine it's like a magical little world where little ditties just pop out and onto the keyboard every now and then. :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

There are times FR when I wonder what it's like to be in the mind and little world of Mr Filled Rolls, I can imagine it's like a magical little world where little ditties just pop out and onto the keyboard every now and then. :greengrin

It is a magical place, which is - every now and again - lashed by the most unimaginable storms.

It also looks a bit like an episode of Monty Python. :wink:

---------- Post added at 06:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:14 PM ----------


I know. This isn't really a thread for discussion its for those of one trail of thought to agree and pat each other on the back, those who wont accept others opinions, its a bit of a love in :devil:

That's a bit unfair.

[J-C]

It is a magical place, which is - every now and again - lashed by the most unimaginable storms.

It also looks a bit like an episode of Monty Python. :wink:

---------- Post added at 06:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:14 PM ----------



That's a bit unfair.


Now any episode of this would be OK with me. :thumbsup:

[Phil D. Rolls]

The more I read on this topic, the less I understand. It seems to me that the whole insanity defence is based on how someone else interprets a person's state of mind.

Fundamental to it seems to be the test of whether the person knew right from wrong. I believe that Thomson and Venables acted in a way that showed they had a full understanding of what they were doing, except for one thing. They had not anticipated being caught or brought to book.

If they had, they would surely have been more careful about the way they took the child, about who saw them and what they did afterwards. The very fact that they didn't consider that says to me they were not fully aware of what they were doing.

I believe they did kill the child out of badness. I think a possible explanation for their behaviour was that they had not developed the controls in their brain that stop us from behaving like animals.

If you see their behaviour in the context of a developing animal, like a lion cub, there seems to be some rationale to what they were doing. I believe what makes us different from animals like that is the ability to chose not to follow our basic instincts and desires. Steinbeck explores this issue in East of Eden.

Whether in the case of these two boys, that ability to choose was missing, or was at least was not fully developed, is hard to say. I believe that psychological tests developed to test that are inconclusive - hence the fact that you can have psychologists acting for the defence and the prosecution in a trial - arguing about their interpretation.

Likewise, I have not seen any evidence of a neurological or genetic test that can conclusively show that personality is hard wired into the brain. I think, however, that the possibility that badness is present in a person at birth is a real one.

What I do know is that scientific testing can take the sequence of events where a person decides to do something right down to the transfer of individual atoms at cell level. What it hasn't done is show why the person takes that decision in the first place. This raises the possiblity that there is some undefined organism working in our brain - a soul for the want of better words.

I think when we deal with children, even ones who commit unspeakable wrongs, we have to always err on the side of caution, and give them the benefit of the doubt. Unless we can prove inconclusively that these boys were no different from a fully formed adult, then we have to treat them as developing human beings - and give them the chance to develop correctly.

That is why I think it was wrong to try them as adults. Because they were, anything that came after was mish mash of procedure and practice.

In answer to the OP's question, I think it is possible for madness and badness to exist alongside each other. I think we are born with the same instincts as animals, and as we develop we learn how to temper them and adapt them so we can share a civilisation with others.

Let's be honest, we all have bad thoughts, but few of us act on them.

I think if a child sees badness, he will believe it to be the right way to act. Even though others don't. For that reason, I think - although I am not 100% certain - that the safest thing to do was to make allowance for that.

I'll probably change my opinion completely in the next 24 hours, as I really don't know. Given that none of us can read each other's thoughts, I don't think anyone will ever know.

We can try to reach a consensus though, and the more people who are prepared to test their opinions against others, rather than hiding behind beliefs they haven't even questioned themselves, the better.

[Jonnyboy]

No, those 2 were quite simply EVIL! It was premeditated y'know? They knew what they were doing, I don't care what you say...:blah::blah:

But seriously, you are correct. :agree:

Are we allowed to say that though the boys may not have been evil, the premeditated actions they undertook were indeed evil?

[EuanH78]

Are we allowed to say that though the boys may not have been evil, the premeditated actions they undertook were indeed evil?

I certainly think thats a fair thing to say.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Are we allowed to say that though the boys may not have been evil, the premeditated actions they undertook were indeed evil?

Say what you want Jonnyboy, it's a love in on this thread. :greengrin

[Jay]

It is a magical place, which is - every now and again - lashed by the most unimaginable storms.

It also looks a bit like an episode of Monty Python. :wink:

---------- Post added at 06:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:14 PM ----------



That's a bit unfair.

Oh for gods sake take it in the way it was intended :rolleyes:

[Jonnyboy]

Say what you want Jonnyboy, it's a love in on this thread. :greengrin

Peace, my friend :greengrin

[Steve-O]

Are we allowed to say that though the boys may not have been evil, the premeditated actions they undertook were indeed evil?

Well I guess it depends if you believe in 'evil'? Using the basic definition of the word then I guess it's fair to say what they did was an evil thing.

What I object to is people saying they were born evil, are evil, and will always be evil no matter what, even though 99% of people only know about 2 hours from their entire lifetime.

[Dinkydoo]

I've always been of the opinion that people aren't born ********s, they learn how to be one from the major influences in thier life (Mum, Dad, friends.....other close family, roles models...etc).

I guess the same principle would be applied to being "evil".

Though an act you've committed may be perceived by some as "evil". To me, it's more or less down to the effect certain experiences (ghood and bad) have had on you throughout your life so far.

For example, the killers of Jamie Bulger had been through a lot of crap in thier life (not that it excuses the horrific things they did:grr:) that maybe has had a profound effect on what morals (if any) they possess, making it very difficult to differentiate from 'right' and 'wrong'.

I think that the meaning of "evil" has come from ignorance and superstition IMVHO, from past societies that perhaps didn't understand mental illness as well as we do today.

Admitedly, it does give you a cracking sore head if you think about it too long - or is that the electromagnetic radiation having an effect.....:greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

Oh for gods sake take it in the way it was intended :rolleyes:

Sorry, I didn't realise it was a joke.

There might be mind readers on this thread, but I'm not one.:greengrin

Time for a chill pill methinks. :smokin

[Jay]

Sorry, I didn't realise it was a joke.

There might be mind readers on this thread, but I'm not one.:greengrin

Time for a chill pill methinks. :smokin

The clue was in the smilie. Didn't think I needed to say it was a joke as well. Huge apologies.

(Now where's that sarcastic smilie otherwise I will have to tell you I am being sarcastic? Nope cant find it!)

Just to let you know, I am being sarcastic :cool2:

[Phil D. Rolls]

The clue was in the smilie. Didn't think I needed to say it was a joke as well. Huge apologies.

(Now where's that sarcastic smilie otherwise I will have to tell you I am being sarcastic? Nope cant find it!)

Just to let you know, I am being sarcastic :cool2:

I wasn't. Let's leave it at that.

[Jay]

I wasn't. Let's leave it at that.

you're the boss.

[Phil D. Rolls]

you're the boss.

Ok then.