Thinking about murder- illness or immoral?

Post Reply New Topic

Anyone who commits suicide by flying a plane with 149 other people on board into a mountain is clearly mentally unwell. I find it interesting people who judge and say that this is an immoral act. Is it immoral to have heart failure, or liver cancer, or deep vein thrombosis? Would you say to these people ah just get over it, don't let it kill you , you have control over it? No you wouldn't. Then why, I wonder, do we do this with people who's brain is not functioning correctly?

This does not mean that I think it is ok to commit suicide in this manner, clearly it is not, but we need to realise and accept that brain illness is no different to any other illness, like sufferers of cancer or DVT etc. People suffering from brain malfunctions have the same lack of control over the problem. Actually I will go further they have LESS control over the situation than someone who's brain is functioning well.

I mean it is like someone saying to me "oh for pities sake it is obvious what that person is thinking just look at their face. Whats wrong with you get over your ASD its blindingly obvious what is going on"

Someone committing a planned suicide has control over his actions.
A planned suicide cannot be compared to having hearth failure or cancer because they are under no-one's control.

If I were to compare the pilot's actions to anything I could compare him to a pedophile attacking a child. Pedophiles have specific urges and in the worst case might not even think that they do anything wrong but they have control over their own actions. They can choose to act on the urge or consider common moral laws and stop themselves.

One doesn't have to agree with common morality to make decisions according to it. Breaking moral laws make you immoral even if you personally think otherwise. Being immoral is just a label that society gives you. Just as breaking regular laws makes you a criminal.

I might be mentally ill too - because while I call the pilot actions immoral I don't consider him a monster like many people seem to do. For me he was just logically thinking human that happened to make decisions opposite to common moral laws. I can logically understand why he did all this. But I still think he made a wrong decision because he decided to hurt other people anyway while logically knowing that they will get hurt. Which is opposite to what is right.

^ you appear to have missed my point entirely.

^ and you appear to have missed my.

Wishing someone would just f off and die isn't the same as the detailed murder/suicide plot. The key is to know when it is a matter of serious concern and that is when such a person has access to act on the fantasy. I could write twenty books about going on a shooting spree and I have no guns and am not trying to obtain any. Someone would read my murderous novels and think my mind is messed up but if they tried to get me on anything else since I have no guns nor am trying to obtain them, I would fight them tooth and nail because I do have the right to write murder fantasies and just because I have written them doesn't mean I will follow through. I am capable of telling the difference between serious intent and idle fantasy.

I could also write several novelletes about being a pilot and crashing a plane but I can assure you the chances of me actually doing that are relatively remote.

I could still do some other kind of murder, one that involves what I have on hand, but I would never kill someone without killing myself first because I hate people who murder others just because they want to die themselves. That is behavior I loathe with every ounce of my being. It's hideous and selfish to take someone's life just because I am having a sucky day. If someone is going to kill themselves, they should keep it between themselves and God and not bring others into it because the aftermath their loved ones endure after their death will be hell enough, don't bring in the loved ones of all these others who just happen to encounter the individual when they decide to throw their tantrum.

Any pilot that has developed a serious fantasy and plan to bring down an air liner shouldn't have access to planes, just like someone who has developed a plan to use an automatic weapon to kill everyone they encounter in a shopping mall shouldn't have a gun.


So, the murder fantasy does say something about the state of mind. The key is to find out what else is going on in their mind, as in, is it okay with them if strangers die? Do they rationalize that, because that is a very dangerous state to be in, where you feel their death is justified. It makes it easier to act out a murder fantasy. I would never justify the death that happens in a random mass murder event. I think it's stupid and selfish and to me, that's a healthy way to think of it.

Congratulations. You don't feel disconnected to this world because if you did you wouldn't feel so strongly about it

I think it's important to note that the investigation is still ongoing and mechanical failure has not been ruled out. In fact according to investigator Jean-Pierre Michel the hypotheses (not really the proper word to use her but it is the word he uses) that Andreas Lubitz, the co-pilot of Germanwings flight 9525 Crashed flight 9525 for personal reasons other hypotheses (see above comment) could not be excluded such as a mechanical failure. The reason I mention this is because I find fault in condemning a man in the history books before a proper investigation has been concluded.

Unfortunately, media sensationalism ran with the story the second they learned that there was a possibility of an intentional crash. (After all what sells newspapers? plane crashes due to mechanical failure or Suicidal maniac intentionally crashes plane into side of mountain killing 149 other people for his sick pleasure. (Not saying he didn't due it, but let's conduct a full investigation into the matter before declaring him a murder. Heck if it the investigation concludes it was intentional then I will be the first to condemn him)

Anyway, this thread has progressed way beyond the topic of flight 9525 and has entered an interesting topic field. That of morality and ethics. However, I must admit that I think the topic is much to broad and needs to be significantly narrowed before I feel comfortable commenting on morality or ethics) For example discussion on a specific form of morality or ethics i.e Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative, John Stuart Mills' Utilitarianism, Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics and teleological approach, or by addition your own view on morality and ethics

Sorry, but I have never in my entire life wanted someone to die. Maybe that sounds strange to some people but it's true.

I have done thought experiments like what if I were that pilot. What would it feel like crashing into the mountains. But the thoughts repulses me. I can imagine it to an extent, but anyone who is able to put themselves in the pilot's shoes is already morally corrupt. A morally sound person simply cannot do. The only exception is the pilot was completeyl out of touch with reality. Completely psychotic to the point where he thought he was a dream. I don't buy it though.

It's not a matter of whether the person can act on the thoughts. It's the simple fact that these thoughts are not healthy. Healthy people don't get these thoughts, period.

To be honest, I have never had the desire to harm anyone I don't know. I don't want some stranger harming me so I won't go and harm them. I have enough trouble dealing with the rowdy people I do know so why would I wish complications involving ones I don't?

Most people, growing up, have thoughts of harming people they do know, like the ones they go to school with. After a day of bickering, it is not uncommon for one kid to want to punch the lights out of the other and if they do, someone steps in. Fights happen all the time. Sometimes, they happen to adults, but when they do, it's assault and battery on the record. Best get it out of your system early and find ways to deal with anger that will help you in life, not harm.

Morality is not fixed, or absolute. It is something as a result of group behaviour, Nietzsche was a philosopher and cultural critic not a biologist (although he did make some astute points). he wasn't looking for an explanation, more write a critique of morality in cuture. A system of morality is something that developed as a meme for the function if societies, and proto-soceital groups. Past societies have had moralities that we would consider immoral, but it served their purpose.

There is an individual sense of morality too. Just that if the morality is so differing from the mean of that particular culture, then it is likely to conflict with it, and would be be put into line through some system such as the legal system.

We know through studying history, we have actually become less violent (dispute the perception through 24 hour media), this means we as a whole less tolerant of it (not to say we aren't still capable of it, nor to underplay the role of testosterone on our behaviour among other things). We tend to need to qualify violence to a greater extent that we used to, event like this have a greater impact on our psyche.

On the other hand I have a quite detailed views on empathy being something somewhat different than the agreed definition, and being highly selective.

A doctor won't always report you for having violent thoughts is he feels you are in no danger of others. But if he does feel that way, then he is obligated to report you by law.

I have expressed my violent fantasies to my therapist in high school and fantasies about harming our animal who was giving me tremendous anxiety because he wouldn't stop pissing in the house. I have never been reported for that. I don't think it makes you a bad person for having them because they are just thoughts and feelings, not actions. But hey if no one thought about violence, then violent movies wouldn't exist nor in books especially murder and it wouldn't be in video games either.