I still consider that an example of a person acting under the delusion that what they do is right. Even if someone does intentionally hurt or even destroy another life the human mind can not only intellectualise it but justify it to the point that it truly convinces the perpetrator themselves.

Consider serial killers, I mention these guys (they are invariably guys with some exceptions) because reading of serial killers and researching specific cases is something I do…out of interest. Probably the most fascinating aspect of digesting that stuff is observing your own efforts to remain objective and watching your own rigid code of morality soften a little and start bending (think spaghetti).

It’s at the point where you find yourself emotionally resonating with the killer, when your heart actually aches for him not because you were seduced by his own justification but because you could imagine yourself arriving to a similar place if you were him…it’s at that point you have to be a little suprised at how malleable morality is.

The standard example I would apply that to would be a child whose virtuous nature was not nurtured but actually destroyed and through persistant abuse/neglect/exposure to depravity the child has all the materials to construct a big ugly, confused and conflicted monster inside of him.

The good nature can still prevail for many years as weak and frail as it is but when the balance is tipped and when the child is an adult with no prospects but with that sense of injustice (which can only come from a good place) even more heightened….they could quite feasibly reason ”I feel unfairly treated….this isn’t life….seeing others live hurts…I want to kill my source of hurt….but that’s wrong…..I wouldn’t want to offend or hurt people….but I’ve been offended and hurt all my life….I qualified as scum since I could talk….where’s the justice in that?….I am owed something surely…it’s only just….It’s only just that I kill if it relieves this hurt”.

Afterall what alternative would someone in that situation see? Holding in the bitter and painful sense of injustice soley for the benefit of others?….others who did nothing to extend the thinnest strand of justice to him when he was most vulnerable? That’s not just.

Don’t get me wrong….clearly the conclusion to kill isn’t right. I only know that though as someone who believes in something greater than me ( back to the original post) and I agree if your source of morality is yourself (as unstable, shortsighted and volatile as we can all be) it’s a safe bet it’ll end in tears.

By commiting to something and striving to uphold to something higher than you even when you are torn by injustice and anger you might fall short but you certainly won’t ever decide to kill people….

The only instances where I think the idea that all people are convinced they are right in their actions does not apply would be those who are addicted. Drugs, sex, gambling etc….there is a vicious cycle of guilt that goes hand in hand with addiction and we all know guilt is the brain’s way of saying ‘you twat’. And when challenged those who are slaves to extreme addiction wouldn’t even try and justify their perpetual behaviour.

I suggest that God must have built us with us a mechanism to determine what is right and wrong in the absence of space and time because the results of our actions transcend those limits.In the other worlds of God is when we see the consequences of what we do, wrong and right (i believe) so

in other words, there must be somthing within all of us that can determine what is wrong, in an absolute sense, because the Creator is independant of space and time, and then the purpose of this life is to use our ability to distinguish between right and wrong, and to practise doing the right thing.I think even serial killers knew they were doing wrong, like addicts, but the severity of their acts were maybe not as clear in their minds as it would be in a non-killer, just tolerance levels and pain thresholds differ.

I think Humane Owle’s comments definitely do apply. There are those who from nurture (or lack thereof) develop either psychologic or psychiatric issues which they do not have full control of. But except in the extreme circumstance, is “full” the operative word? Do we still all have the ability to break the chain of destructive behaviour or tendencies, or to seek assistance?

But there are also those who commit serial crimes and in retrospect, do admit that “what I did was wrong.” Remorse is certainly not uncommon in such crimes - whether they be one off or serial crimes. Right Humane Owl?

One way of looking at this is that sometimes, such behaviours are partly a symptom of society’s wider malady. If we are all linked, we feed off each other. We create the society that creates us, we provide the conditions for each other’s choices and behaviour. Therefore, sometimes horrible things happen as a result of our collective action, or inaction. But this is not to suggest that the perpetrator of the action is off scotch-free, because he is also a player in that wider scheme of things as well as Captain of his own ship.

In my example this very mechanism was damaged at a very young age hindering his ability to make the distinctions you’re talking about.

My point in essense was that in the war of nature v nurture in some instances nurture can impose itself on nature and that fundamentally good nature can find itself trying adapt for survival. Powerless to do anything other than reconcile itself with this new monster taking the driver’s seat. A true process of self destruction.

Powerless that is unless we are plugged in and committed to the higher source we are referring to. Something that informs our decisions instead of having our decisions inform out morality.

John 15:5 - “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful… Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. ”

It’s this hazard of existing independent of the ‘vine’ I was trying to expose. Being our own guide for moral and righteous action is a path riddled with traps.

So whilst I agree there is such a thing as an inate ability to distinguish right and wrong I disagree that therefore we need only consult ourselves to clarify the moral weight of what we are doing. And I was trying to highlight how pear shaped that course of action could become.

Like any other attribute unless it is nurtured it will die, nothing survives without taking in what is out. And in the spiritual sense what is out is the very source of it all and to develop this moral clarity in the face of the most ugly of circumstances I believe we alone (without the vine) are not enough.

In a discussion where we recognise the value of taking responsibility for your actions and where we seem to appreciate the truth of unity and oneness of everything. Surely it would be a little contradictory to not assert that this sense of responsibility should not exist on a collective level and it would be a little inconsistant in deciding that some people have nothing to do with us.

So should the perpetrator of these most destructive of acts be let off ’scotch-free’? no. But I think we should all be clear on the fundamental and single mistake that such a person would have made. In my mind it’s that they didn’t exhaust all possibilities of resistance before submitting to this inner demon. For if they had they would have surely prevailed.

I believe their crime is that they turned away (be it due to ego or blind rage) from the truth. I personally am just not always comfortable in assuming how difficult or not difficult that may have been for them.

You also right Misagh in mentioning the many instances when regret and remorse are shown by the person who committed the acts. Another thing I find so fascinating about these cases is the variety of ways people manage arrive at such a dark place. It can be momentary moments of madness, plain arrogance or years of agony. I suppose my example would only speak for the latter.

Humble Owl’s citing of Scripture, saying the same, was well done.

So perhaps one way to know if we are doing the right thing is to ask whether we are doing the difficult thing. the serial killer is the aberation, so the rule doesnt apply to him. But perhaps even there it applies - the easiest thing to do is to let the monster grab the wheel. Much harder to exercise discipline and control.

From the Producers of Danny Deckchair comes a story of a culturally conflicted bloke – (VO: Get stuffed Ophie, get thee to a pub) – who seeks revenge after swearing he could see his old man Fred’s ghost at the RSL on Friday Arvo. (Add reverb) HAMMO: The Tasmano-Danish Prince – (VO: Strewth, these dacks are tight!)

The origin of the phrase “scott free” lies in the original wording, “scotch free”. http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/18/messages/159.html

Sometimes my medieval alter ego takes over, no idea why…

if the average person is able to be moderate in all things without having to go through some extreme experience.There are many examples of people whose delusions lead them into darkness but in doing so, they see the light and appreciate it more, and then they say it was all a part of the process !? i wonder if that (extreme) is really necessary, or better, for true growth & happiness ?

Is our vine good?